Why We Don’t Use Alcohol For the Lord’s Supper at our Church by David R. Brumbelow

Some today are leading churches to begin using alcoholic wine instead of unfermented wine or grape juice in observance of the Lord’s Supper. I’ve personally heard of several such instances in recent days.

It is often presented as more biblical to use alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper. A careful study of ancient wine and the Bible, however, along with medical evidence and common sense, may show Baptists have actually been more biblical than some assert.

Following are a few reasons why the big majority of Baptists do not use alcoholic wine in the ordinance (not sacrament) of the Lord’s Supper:

1. Even though the word wine referred to both fermented and unfermented wine in Bible times, the word wine is never used in Scripture referring to the Lord’s Supper. Instead, “cup,” or “fruit of the vine.” The best representative of fruit of the vine would be the juice immediately pressed; rather than that processed and made alcoholic. Scripture certainly never says to use alcohol for the Lord?s Supper.

2. Alcohol is a poison that immediately impairs judgment, kills brain cells, and makes men do what they would never do in their right minds. It is made by the process of rotting good, fresh, sweet unfermented wine. Why use that to represent the precious, pure, redeeming blood of Jesus?

3. Why use a drug to represent the blood of Jesus?

4. Why teach saved children to drink that which is a recreational drug? Why lead anyone by example to drink? Why use a church ordinance to lead someone astray? Alcohol has led multitudes astray. Alcohol abuse and dependence is a real problem.

5. Unfermented wine or grape juice in no way diminishes from the symbolism and biblical teaching of the Lord’s Supper. There are no harmful side effects of unfermented wine.

6. Jesus said when He would drink again with the disciples, it would be new wine (Matthew 26:29).

7. The bread of Passover and the Lord’s Supper is to be unleavened. It naturally follows that the cup should also be without leaven or ferment.

8. There are a multitude of good reasons not to drink; there are no good reasons to drink beverage alcohol.

9. The ancients had available throughout the year, and knew multiple ways to preserve, unfermented wine. Certain kinds of good keeping grapes were kept throughout the year and pressed for fresh, sweet wine (Genesis 40:11). Ancient accounts tell of churches pressing grapes directly into the cup for the Lord’s Supper. Early churches also made unfermented wine from raisins. Jews also used these processes. Unfermented wine was common, and commonly preserved in Bible times.

The oft heard dogmatic pronouncements, “Jesus and the disciples had to use fermented wine for Passover since it was six months after the grape harvest,” and, It was impossible to prevent fermentation until the discovery of pasteurization in the 1800s,?are absolutely, demonstrably false.

11. Using new wine or grape juice will in no way cause a struggling alcoholic, or anyone else, to stumble.

12. For those who insist the Corinthians used alcoholic wine for the Lord’s Supper: (1) It never says they did. (2) “Drunk” is contrasted with not having enough to eat, and the passage is only speaking of eating, not wine. (3) The word “drunk” can obviously mean intoxicated, but it can also simply mean filled or satiated. (4) Even if the Corinthians were using alcoholic wine for the Lord’s Supper, Paul is not complimenting them but reproving them. (5) Should we use what may be the most immature church in the New Testament as our example in this regard?

Former SBC President Herschel H. Hobbs said it well. The elements used in this Supper were unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. The word wine is not used. Some interpret fruit of the vine as wine. However, as the bread was unleavened, free of bacteria, was the cup also not grape juice? Wine is the product of the juice plus fermentation caused by bacteria. Since both elements represented the pure body and blood of Jesus, there is reason to ponder. The writer sees fruit of the vine”as pure grape juice untainted by fermentation.”

-Brumbelow is a pastor and author of “The Wit and Wisdom of Pastor Joe Brumbelow” and “Ancient Wine and the Bible.” He writes at gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Subscribe

Notify of

Bill Mac

Bacteria is not responsible for fermentation, yeast is. There’s no way anything they ate or drank, fresh or otherwise was free from bacteria. It is also unlikely that even fresh grape juice is free from yeast, since there is yeast in the air all around us, so grape juice is not “unleavened” in that sense.

Does anyone one know if the Jews used wine or juice for the passover meal?

Reason #1: It tastes good. And besides, since when has a 1oz. cup been considered a beverage?

January 10, 2012 2:51 pm

volfan007

why drink alcohol when you can get most drinks “virgin?” In other words, why do you need the alcohol in it? you say you drink it for taste…why not just get a the virgin option of that drink?

I think we all know why someone wants to drink alcohol. To get high.

The Bible says that our joy should come from God…from being filled with the Holy Spirit…not from spirits.

On another note, the taste of whiskey and beer is terrible. You have to acquire a taste for somthing that tastes that bad. Its kind of like saying you like to drink buttermilk, or black coffee, etc. I dont believe…in all my days of drinking…back when I used to drink….did I ever hear anyone who first started drinking say that they did it because they just loved the taste of it! lol….they drank it to get high, which is the reason I used to drink, as well.

Volfan, I know this will disappoint you, but my mind doesn’t work like yours. What if I said the only reason you have cable is because you want to see scantily clad women because that’s why I used to have cable. The argument is ridiculous.

“Remember that alcohol is used solely for its effect (or for some degree of inebriation), never to satisfy thirst or to cool off, since it does the opposite.” -William B. Terhune, M.D.
This statement is made, not by an abstainer, but by one who advocates the moderate use of alcohol.
David R. Brumbelow

Your last comment again proved you need some serious lessons in logic.

January 10, 2012 6:52 pm

Smuschany

First, alcohol is a depressant, not a stimulant. Thus strictly speaking, you don’t “get high” from alcohol.

Second while caffeine is a stimulant, the process of addiction and bodily reliance on it is very similar to alcohol. Thus it begs the question, why do people drink coffee? Since coffee (caffeine) is a stimulant, one can assume due to David’s logic, that it is only to “get high”. Which would be a shock to most SBC pastors whom I would guess that something like 80% drink coffee each morning, especially Sunday morning.

January 10, 2012 7:08 pm

John Wylie

You know David’s reference to getting high was speaking of intoxication. You can over indulge in coffee, but it’s not an intoxicant.

I personally do believe that the Bible teaches moderation, but that doesn’t mean that I’m pro alcohol. I think David actually asks a pretty good question.

January 10, 2012 7:16 pm

Smuschany

Actually you can get caffeine intoxication, and it symptoms are very similar (albeit at a lower scale) to intoxications to other stimulants such as cocaine and nicotine. If you ever have seen someone after they have had several cups of coffee in a short time period become “hyper”, THAT is the first stages of caffeine intoxication.

Caffeine is the most widely used psychoactive drug in the world,1 found in coffee, tea, cocoa, chocolate candy and soft drinks. While caffeine has several positive effects such as increasing energy and mental alertness, heavy use can cause symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia. Caffeine is physically addictive,2 and withdrawal symptoms can include headaches, fatigue and irritability.

So beverage alcohol is supposedly off limits for Christians? What about this caffeine? Mind altering. Why (Volfan) would a Christian drink coffee? It is potentially addictive and mind altering. Apparently Baptists everywhere need to step away from the coffee bar. But, I suspect there is a double standard here.

Looks like anti-alcohol folks are all for no alcohol (drugs as David B. calls it) but OK with caffeine (a drug).

Not everyone who drinks alcohol drinks to get high. That’s a very judgmental statement. You say that no one drank with you in your drinking days for the taste, I would guess then that you were drinking cheap, mass produced beer or wine. Fine beers and wine have very pleasant tastes. They are very enjoyable in moderation.

Also, you mention getting some drinks (I assume you are referring to margaritas or daquaris) and I think the answer would be simply, they don’t taste like a margarita or daquari if they are virgin. They taste like fruit drinks which are fine if you like fruit drinks.

I’m sorry that you had bad experiences with alcohol. I am glad Jesus saved you from your addiction. I am glad that you abstain because you are not interested in being enslaved by alcohol but enslaved by Christ. I would never have a drink in your presence or offer you alcohol out of respect for your past enslavement. I offer you that respect out of love for you as my brother in Christ.

Why then do you want to bind my conscience by yours? Further, why do you cast aspersions on me and others like me by insinuating that my only enjoyment of a beer or a glass of wine is for the purposes of sinning against God by becoming drunk? Why can you not extend to me the same grace in my liberty that I extend to you in your enslavement?

Ryan, you have reminded me of an excellent book by Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace. In it he says (about us putting up man made fences for not only ourselves but for others):

For all of us, it may be good to have some fences, but we have to work at keeping them as just that – fences, helpful to us but not necessarily applicable to others. we also have to work at guarding our freedom from other people’s fences.

Some of the fences in our respective Christian circles have been around a long time. No one quite knows their origin, but by now they are “embedded in concrete”. Although it may cause conflict if you violate one, you must guard your freedom. To paraphrase Paul, “Stand firm in your freedom, and don’t let anyone bring you into bondage with their fences.”

I’m not suggesting you jump over fences just to thumb your nose at the people who hold to them so dearly. We are to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19). Use discretion in embracing or rejecting a particular fence. but don’t let other coerce you with man made rules. And ask God to help you see if you are subtly coercing or judging others with your own fences.

Ryan, happy to oblige. Yes that wisdom from Bridges sort of tends to silence. That along with the biblical record that has been presented has ld to the cricket sounds.

January 11, 2012 12:32 am

Jake Barker

I loved the taste of beer from the very first time…..5 years old on my dad’s lap in an Italian restuarant. And I still love the taste….just not bud, millers or coors. BTW I am 62 now and still not a drunk…..so much for that theory Biff.

January 10, 2012 7:19 pm

volfan007

I love people in the Lord who drink. I dont hate people who drink alcohol. And, if they want to be foolish and drink alcohol, that’s between them and the Lord. But, I believe that the Bible most certainly teaches that its foolish to drink fermented wine, according to the Scriptures in Proverbs. And, of course, its a sin to get intoxicated on alcohol according to Ephesians.

And, Smus, for you to compare coffee with an intoxicating drink like alcohol…c’mon man…let’s stay in the realm of reality. I’ve drank whiskey and beer, and I have most certainly drank coffee. There is NO comparison.

Again, why do people feel the need to drink alcohol? I drink coke, coffee, tea, water, double chocolate chip frappucinos, etc. Why would I, as a Believer in Christ, want to drink something thats dangerous and foolish? I believe we all know why people drink alcohol…it is most certainly to get high on it. c’mon, let’s at least admit the truth here. YOu drink it to get high on it.
David

January 11, 2012 12:26 am

volfan007

BTW, back in my lost, party days; the reason I smoked weed was just for the taste. lol woooo hooo…

David, brother…I really think it’s out of place to refer to people like me as foolish AND to keep on insisting that YOU know my motivation to drink wine or a beer or whatever. I do not drink to “get high.”

January 11, 2012 12:46 am

cb scott

I don’t think I could say that everyone who uses beverage alcohol does so to “get high.” I don’t think that is always the case at all.

Drinking with willful intent to get high or to get drunk is usually specific to cultural or emotional circumstances. Sometimes people do get drunk because of some specific crisis (a good or a bad crisis) or one time event and do so with willful intent. But, not every time, does every individual who uses beverage alcohol do so with the intent to get drunk or “high.”

Yet, if a person drinks to “take the edge off of a particularly hard day” and those days become more frequent, one might see that such use of beverage alcohol has become more than it once was in one’s life.

It is that point that I think we might need to examine our use of beverage alcohol in any amount. The major, or at least one of the major problems with the use of beverage alcohol is that we do not or may not know when we are in the danger zone with its use.

January 11, 2012 1:12 am

volfan007

Debbie,

To drink liquor to take the edge off of a hard day is drinking to get high….lol.

Les,
Why dont you just drink a coke? or a frappe from McDonalds? why do you have to drink liquor?

David: I drink those things too. In fact I probably drink those drinks more than I have a alcoholic drink. But I do drink moderately once in awhile. As Les said, it’s pleasure once in a while and there is nothing wrong with pleasure.

The way you react to the word pleasure you would think it’s a sin, but again I remind you that God gave us all good things to enjoy. I enjoy life David. Immensely.

Does pleasure equal getting high? If you say yes, and apparently you think it wrong to get high, then you are in a really awkward corner. Sex brings pleasure which according to you equals getting high which is something a Christian shouldn’t so. So, either you have to admit that sex is not pleasurable or you should not ever have sex again.

5 and 11 are the best points made here, and I haven’t read a good argument by those who require using wine against those particular points.

Points 2, 3, and 8 stem from our traditional Baptist view of “unsubstantiation.” The arguments in those points already assume a priori that any drinking is sin, so why write the rest of the article if that view is already proven?

January 10, 2012 3:09 pm

Smuschany

Seriously, you anti-alcohol folks really need to study just a BIT of oenology and the history of wine-making before making arguments.

“Sweet wine” was not non-alcoholic wine, but rather what we call today “white wine”. “New” vs “Old” wine was not a reference to the amount of alcohol, but rather the vintage of the wine. You guys do know that the Romans prized “old” wines that were stored for 5, 10, sometimes 25 years. New wines were the wines that were often stored for less than a year, but could be as little as a month as the fermentation process for most variates of wines took less than a month.

I do want to say something else. The ONLY places I have ever seen the idea that the Ancient world regularly and routinely created non-alcoholic wines are from Christian anti-alcohol folks. I have never seen such a reference from either historical Greek, Roman, Hebrew histories, or from oenology sources. Some Christians claim “oinos” can mean both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, but again, I have not heard of such examples in greater Greek/Roman writings. Furthermore, I HAVE seen examples of Christians using wine in Lords Supper within the first 3 centuries after Christ. Particularly in the writings of Justin and Clement of Alexandria. Clement even tells Christians not to let children partake in the “medicine” that is the Eucharist, due to the possibility of it leading to “wild impulses”. He goes on to speak of always drinking the “medicine” in moderation. Clement was writing in the late 2nd early 3rd Century people, less than 200 years after the death of Christ. But wait…he is one of those “evil” Catholics (even though he lived prior to the establishment of the RCC) so he cant be trusted/listened to.

I think Schmush raises a pretty good question. I’ve seen the teaching that oinos does not mean fermented wine, but the only place I have ever read that was from Baptists who were against wine. Are there historical sources that support this that are not from abstentionist sources?

I’m neither an abstentionist nor an imbiber, so I’ve got no axe to grind in this discussion. But I’d like to see references to historical sources that also do not have an axe to grind that would support this idea.

Honestly, this has never been a huge issue for me, so I’ve not really paid much attention to the moderationist/abstentionist campaigns that have gone on here. So, if this has been done before, I’d love to see it.

Dave & Matt,
Some of the answer I listed below, way down in the comments on this thread.

Oinos (Greek word for wine) was not always used for unfermented wine, and I’ve never said it was. I don’t know of anyone who believes that. However, oinos was used of both fermented wine and unfermented wine.

Matthew 9:17
Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.

Notice Jesus Himself in the same verse calls wine (oinos) that which is not fermented, as well as calling that which has fermented by the same name, wine (oinos).

But does Jesus calling unfermented wine count, since He was an abtainer?
David R. Brumbelow

January 10, 2012 5:09 pm

Smuschany

The reason why you dont put new wine into old skins, is that the old skins have already expanded and stretched due to the release of CO2 during the fermentation process. If you were to put new wine, into old skins, the production of CO2 would burst the skin. But that “new wine” most certainly was wine in which would soon (less than a month) become alcoholic. So your argument is completely and entirely moot.

My point is that Jesus called non-alcoholic, unfermented wine, by the name “wine” or oinos.

And as stated before, the ancients could have easily preserved it from fermentation had they chosen to do so.
David R. Brumbelow

January 10, 2012 5:34 pm

Smuschany

And you are missing the point that that “new wine” that Jesus referred to WAS going to ferment. THAT is why he called it oinos. When an apple tree is still a sapling you dont call it something else, you still call it an apple tree even though it is not yet producing apples and wont for several years. Likewise, Jesus called that “new wine” with the word “oinos” not because he was making a point about non-alcoholic wine, but because that “new” “oinos” was going to ferment! Period, done, end of argument. Again, the reason why you dont put “new” oinos into “old” skins is because the old skins cannot expand when the fermentation process produces CO2.

Smuschany,
Whatever your interpretation of Matthew 9:17, the fact is, Jesus called unfermented wine by the name wine (oinos).

To argue that all unfermented wine is alcoholic wine because that is what it is going to turn into is invalid. By that argument, as previously mentioned, all fresh meat is rotten, since that is what it is going to turn into. That is not true because meat can, is, and was preserved. It is also not true because unfermented wine could, and very often was, preserved in that state.

To use your argument, one could also say all wine is vinegar, since that is what alcoholic wine turns into (By the way, the Bible also calls vinegar, “wine.”).

In Bible times, however, they could preserve alcoholic wine in that state, and they could preserve nonalcoholic wine in that state. This argument seems to be just a convenient way to dismiss and ignore the many ancient references that clearly call unfermented wine by the name, “wine.”
David R. Brumbelow

Dave,
Most of the quotes given above come from primary sources. Who best to understand the meaning of wine 2,000 years ago than the very people who wrote and spoke the language?

Ancient Wine and the Bible gives many more ancient quotes to support this view. Josephus called the just pressed grape juice of Genesis 40:11 “wine,” and later called it the “fruit of the vine.” One ancient writer said, “Squeeze the grape, let out the wine.” The list goes on.

Most who put together dictionaries (lexicons) and encyclopedias rely heavily on earlier lexicons than doing their own original research.

Many Bible lexicons and authorities do say all wine was fermented, but a significant number do not. My book quotes many authorities who do not believe all wine is fermented. Examples given in my book include John Kitto (who was highly praised by Spurgeon), Young’s Concordance, Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, B. H. Carroll, Paige Patterson, Robert Teachout (DTS Doctoral Dissertation on The Use of Wine in the Old Testament), Moses Stuart (professor at Andover who taught Adoniram Judson), Lyman Abbott, Leon C. Field, and others.

Hey Dave,
The vocal abstentionists on this blog are not abstentionists at all but “prohibitionists” dedicated to prohibiting everyone from not being an abstentionist. Where is the historical “priesthood of the believer”? Has the SBC become…..horror of horrors….a…denomination? No more free thinking baptists?

I would recommend, if you read this, checking many other resources, also.

January 10, 2012 4:14 pm

Bill Mac

I don’t have a problem using grape juice for the LS. If wine was used I would take it, even though I don’t drink. The quarter oz thimbles we use for communion couldn’t inebriate a medium sized shrew.

That said, the weight of biblical scholarship seems to be heavily on the side of moderationism. Much of what is being argued here seems circular.

One argument I see time and time again, though not in this particular post, is that the ancients didn’t have distillation technology and therefore could not have made wine as potent as what is available today. It only takes about 5 minutes research to know that beer and wine are not distilled beverages, if you didn’t know it already. The ancients were entirely capable of producing beer (strong drink) and wine very similar to what is available today.

I would advise abstentionists to stick with the wisdom argument. It is much more biblical and therefore much more compelling.

We just ditched our satellite service and got a Roku box. A great thing for people who like old, black and white stuff, especially B movies. A few nights ago I watched a few minutes of The Killer Shrews. If they were drunk, they were mean drunks.

Some of these reasons are at least laughable, if not worse, others are poignant and worthy of consideration. To say what has been said many a time before, it’s not the alcohol that’s the problem–it’s the person is has no self-control. And, Scripture ought not be used to demonize alcohol–the case just isn’t there.

1. Unargued assertion, plus an argument from silence. If Scripture never says to you use alcohol then it must never say not to and it is assumed (according to the post) that “cup” or “fruit of the vine” mean grape juice.

2. Is this all alcohol period regardless of the amount? Are there zero health benefits? This points seems to allude to one being drunk which is a red-herring since the topic is the Lord’s Supper. The question is an unargued rhetorica question. Besides, if wine has some medicinal, and it does according to Scripture, then there is something purifying about wine. And the medicinal use of wine speaks against the initial comments in point 2.

3., 4. Rherotical assumptions in lieu of supporting reasons.

5. Assumption, plus a diabetic might argue that the sugar in grape juice could be harmful to them.

6. Not sure what this has to do with the topic, but it does show that Jesus will drink wine contrasting other points in this post.

7. Assertion and equivocation. Stating that something naturally follows is not proof that it does.

8. Subjective. I was unaware that the wine in the Lord’s Supper is used as a beverage. There have been no good reasons presented to drink wine either.

9. There are plenty of examples of alcoholic wine being used ancient times.

10. Rhetorical, not an argument. What else did priests do that pastors should pastors follow? Why? It also depends on how one defines “drink”.

11. Not necessarily true and this point assumes that the Lord’s Supper would make someone stumble. It assumes what it is trying to prove.

12. (1) It never says they didn’t. (2) Funny, Paul mentions eating and drinking in 1 Cor. 11:22. (3) It seems the common understanding of “drunk” in 1 Cor. 11 means intoxicated. Anyone know of a commentator who says otherwise? (4) This point is exactly right and it is what moderationists have been explaining for a long time. Paul is reproving the Corinthians for drinking too much and getting drunk rather then simply partaking. (5) So maybe we should just do away with the books of 1 & 2 Corinthians so that today’s Christians do not have to fear learning from an immature church.

also, could a woman give her baby FAS from drinking fermented wine at the Lord’s Supper? I’m just asking. I’ve always heard from the experts that a woman can give her child FAS from just one drink of alcohol…even before she ever knows that she’s pregnant.

What about it?

If that’s true, then there’s another reason to not serve fermented wine at the LS?

“The most convincing link between alcohol intake during pregnancy and the development of fetal alcohol syndrome (a collection of symptoms that can lead to severe learning and social disabilities) relates to binge drinking during pregnancy — high alcohol intake on more than one occasion.”

Communion wine poses no risk according to health experts I’ve read.

January 10, 2012 4:09 pm

Bill Mac

I’ve never taken communion at a church that served wine, but it is my understanding that those who do often also provide juice for those who don’t want wine.

“No amount of alcohol is safe to drink during pregnancy.”
-Centers for Disease Control; 2010.

January 10, 2012 4:20 pm

Smuschany

The CDC also says that every single female child (they also are saying males too now) should get a HPV vaccination regardless of if they intend on being sexually active. Be careful on who you cite as sources.

January 10, 2012 4:43 pm

Smuschany

Let me also add that I severely doubt that the CDC even considered the idea of communion wine in this statement. I am sorry but one ounce of wine 9 times (assuming a once a month LS, 38 times if you do once a week), over the course of a pregnancy is NOT going to harm the child.

You can prove it either way about whether the Jews used fermented or unfermented wine in Passover. There are Jewish statements that confirm either. Another consideration – when have the Jews ever strictly followed the commandments of the Lord? Ever read the Old Testament? In that sense, they are a lot like Baptists.

Some make dogmatic, yet incorrect, pronouncements about wine. A number of ancient writers, including Aristotle, talked of how sweet wine would not intoxicate. Yes, you can make alcoholic wine sweet, but the general understanding of ancient sweet wine was that it was what we’d call grape juice (fermentation took away the sweetness).

I know we commonly have alcoholic sweet wine today. However, in ancient times the common view of sweet wine was nonalcoholic wine. Also, they did not have cane sugar available; the only sweeteners were honey and fruit juice (unfermented wine or shekar).

Was nonalcoholic wine available? Yes. There are ancient Greek and Roman wine recipes that, if followed, could not have possibly been alcoholic (they also obviously had alcoholic wine). Ancient and modern authorities speak of un-intoxicating ancient wine. The ancients even had confused discussions of why some wine would intoxicate and other wine would not.
David R. Brumbelow

January 10, 2012 4:16 pm

Smuschany

I am going to go with the assumption that you have never tasted wine before. As such, you don’t know the difference in taste between Red and White wines. While my consumption of wine has been very little due to my submission to the SBC position that pastors (and future pastors) should not drink alcohol, I do have the personal experience to tell you that the reason I prefer(ed) white wine was that it was sweeter than red wine. Now, it should be obvious (though I take nothing for granted) that the Greeks and Romans produced both red and white wines. In fact, most of the grape varieties today (particularly those in Spain, France, and Italy) are direct descendents of the vintages that were produced in Jesus’ day. Now they did boil part of a batch of wine to concentrate the sugars in the wine, but then this mixture would be added back to the batch. Sometimes this boiled wine called “defrutum” would be used as a sweetening agent in foods and other dishes, it was not, to my knowledge EVER used as “fruit juice”. Furthermore, it was again called “defrutum” and not “oinos”.

Once again, I have never seen any example of “sweet” wine ever being used to refer to anything other than “white” wine. Unfortunately so many of the anti-alcohol folks positions are based entirely on the work of other anti-alcohol folks, and thus have no real historical basis.

David, what I’m wondering is if you could point me to some of those sources that back up what you are saying. Are the actual historical sources in your book (I could buy that) – or, you could do the hard work (which I always prefer) and link to those.

But you make statements here that may be true, but every resource I’ve looked at in my Logos Platinum basically says that all the words for wine refer to fermented wine – of varying strengths perhaps.

Since every Christian resource I’ve looked at says the same thing, I am wondering where the historical resources are that explain the non-fermented wine process.

Again, like Schmushany, I’ve never heard this from anyone except committed teetotallers, which doesn’t negate the truth of it, but it at least leaves me wanting to see the historical sources that back that up.

Not trying to be pedantic here, but I’d love to see the citation of sources, particularly the Aristotle reference. I’m a philosophy graduate student who is now studying Aristotle for a class, and I’ve yet to come across this reference.

Matt,
You may be interested in these quotes and the references. Finding these and similar quotes should be relatively easy in a book or website of Aristotle.

“Sweet wine does give off fumes, for it contains fat and behaves like oil. It does not solidify under the influence of cold and it is apt to burn. Really it is not wine at all in spite of its name: for it does not taste like wine and consequently does not inebriate as ordinary wine does. It contains but little fumigable stuff and consequently is inflammable.” -Aristotle; Meteorology, Book IV; c. 350 BC., vol. I; The Complete Works of Aristotle, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 1984.

“There is a kind of wine, for instance, which both solidifies and thickens by boiling – I mean, must.” -Aristotle; Meteorology; c. 350 BC. Vol. I.

Aristotle gives other such quotes that make crystal clear that in his day unfermented wine, as well as fermented wine, were referred to by the world “wine.” These and many other such references are given in my book.
David R. Brumbelow

January 12, 2012 10:17 am

Matt

Thanks! No wonder I’ve never come across this quote before, I’ve never read this book.

In the interest of furthering your studies, you need to read all of Aristotle’s writings :-).
And there are a lot of them!
David R. Brumbelow

January 12, 2012 11:26 am

R.K. Brumbelow

Once again my exalted cousin does a poor job at twisting scripture to meet his presuppositions. He and I have had this conversation before but to go down point by point:
1. Incorrect, Pesach has always been celebrated with Wine, The Lord’s supper took place during a celebration of Pesach and therefore had wine. Further before the advent of pasteurization it was simply impossible for grape juice to exist outside of a grape and not have begun fermentation. The yeast is present even on the outside of the grape so once the skin is broken fermentation will begin.
2. False. False. Because God made it so. If my dear cousin were not so much of a Pharisee that he insists on adding to the law he might realize this.
3. Ask God, He started it.
4-12 I am not going to continue as there is no way I will ever be able to convince David otherwise. I will challenge him with one thing. He claims (without any visible proof) and has maintained over the years that it is ‘demonstrably false’ to claim that pasteurization is necessary to prevent the oxidation of sugars to alcohols I am still waiting on his demonstration, and that even a single molecule of alcohol is sinful (his exact words were that any amount no matter how small was sinful) if this is the case then I am awaiting his rejection of all things carbohydrate so that he will never have a single molecule of alcohol in his system.

Volfan007. One drink of alcohol especially from a communion vessel is substantially insufficient to cause Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. You need to remember that there is alcohol present at all times in our bodies (unless you are on a completely carbohydrate free diet) as suger is processed into alcohol and then into acids as part of converting them into usable energy. While there is no ‘lower limit’ to alcohol for a pregnant woman, 1cc of even 8% alcohol by volume wine would not even be detectable by any medically relevant blood test.

The story of Welch’s began in 1869 in Vineland, New Jersey – when physician and dentist Thomas Bramwell Welch and his son Charles processed the first bottles of “unfermented wine” to use during their church’s communion service.

Note that I don’t drink. I don’t drink because I used to drink way too much. Having said that, I have never been convinced exegetically from the text of Scripture that the use of beverage alcohol is forbidden. Clearly, drunkenness is forbidden, and none here seem to be advocating drunkenness.

1. It is dangerous to say all Jews of all time have done anything. My book gives documented, significant examples of Jews (but certainly not all Jews) saying they use unfermented wine.

You said, “Further before the advent of pasteurization it was simply impossible for grape juice to exist outside of a grape and not have begun fermentation. The yeast is present even on the outside of the grape so once the skin is broken fermentation will begin.”

Using that argument you could also say all beef is rotten since it begins to decompose as soon as the animal is killed. But they knew how to preserve meat, and wine.

You said, “I am still waiting on his demonstration, and that even a single molecule of alcohol is sinful (his exact words were that any amount no matter how small was sinful).”

R. K., I never said that. I believe you were the one who said it, and inferred that is what I believe. I do not. Fresh orange juice has a small amount of alcohol in it, but I’m all for orange juice. My book deals with this very issue.
David R. Brumbelow

Do not make the mistake of assuming all the wine of the ancients was just like the wine of today. It wasn’t. At least not all of it.

Here’s some quotes from ancient non-abstainers, and one modern non-abstainer.

“Sweet wine does give off fumes, for it contains fat and behaves like oil. It does not solidify under the influence of cold and it is apt to burn. Really it is not wine at all in spite of its name: for it does not taste like wine and consequently does not inebriate as ordinary wine does.” -Aristotle

“Wine which you wish to have rather sweet you will have to preserve on the day after you take it out of the vat, but, if you want it rather harsh in flavour, on the fifth day.” -Columella

Aristotle said sweet wine would not inebriate and did not taste like alcoholic wine.

Hippocrates said sweet wine affects the head less, attacks the brain less.

Plutarch held, “Wine should not be heady till it hath lost its sweetness.”

Pliny maintained “Sweet wine…is less inebriating.”

Athenaeus, “Now sweet wines do not make the head heavy.”

“The power of alcoholic drinks to intoxicate was familiar enough, but the presence in them of alcohol and the nature of alcoholic fermentation were not understood; hence Plutarch’s puzzled discussion of why gleukos, must or fresh grape juice, is not intoxicating.” -Andrew Dalby, Food in the Ancient World.
David R. Brumbelow

Actually, according to your quote, Aristotle merely said it doesn’t inebriate like ordinary wine. That doesn’t mean it didn’t inebriate at all, just that it didn’t do so in the same way. Unless of course you are asserting that Aristotle and Pliny disagree here?

January 10, 2012 5:10 pm

Jake Barker

Professor,
Why not do the research on the type of wine that caused the fall of the Roman Empire? The wine was aged in lead vessels and caused lead poisioning. I think that you would find that it was that type of wine that the ancients warned of.

Yes, the ancient Romans used lead vessels and this would certainly cause lead poisoning. But they had no knowledge or understanding of lead poisoning, so could not warn of it. Pliny and others did warn against drunkenness.
David R. Brumbelow

January 10, 2012 5:43 pm

Jake Barker

Actually you will find that the Romans preferred the lead aged wine as it had greater intoxicating effects due to the lead in their brains.

January 10, 2012 5:59 pm

Wade

I do believe the Prophet Isaiah was referring to the body and blood of the Lord Jesus when he wrote this. This is an Old Testament glimpse into the Lord’s Supper! I love this feast! “The Sinner’s Feast” is what I call this passage when I preach it.

Isaiah 25:6-9 (ESV)
[6] On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
[7] And he will swallow up on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.
[8] He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the LORD has spoken.
[9] It will be said on that day,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”

Will Southern Baptist attend this feast? There will be “well-aged wine” there. I’m pretty sure it means that if you’re a fat glutton with no self-control you will get drunk on the wine.

The study, which found no evidence of harm from having a couple drinks a week during pregnancy, was so well done and its findings so conclusive that it ought to become the final word in the field, said Fred Bookstein, an applied statistician who studies fetal alcohol spectrum disorders at both the University of Washington, Seattle, and the University of Vienna.

“This is such a good study that it should shut down this line of research,” said Boostein, who plans to refer people to the paper when they ask him about drinking during pregnancy, and hopes that research dollars can now go towards finding the effects of other, more troublesome chemicals.

“It is no longer valid to argue that we don’t know enough about low-dose drinking during pregnancy or that the known effects of binge drinking may penetrate to low-dose drinkers somehow,” he added. “There is no detectable risk associated with light or moderate drinking during pregnancy.”

Final results of the study, published today in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, agreed with previous work that children born to heavy binge drinkers do worst on developmental tests, because excessive exposure to alcohol in the womb kills nerve cells and causes brain damage.

The kids of teetotalers did almost as poorly, however, reflecting the complicated phenomenon that people who never drink have poor outcomes on many measures of health.

But the study found no evidence that light drinking during pregnancy causes emotional or learning problems in children through the age of five. In some tests of vocabulary and pattern creation, boys actually did best if their moms drank a little while carrying them. The findings confirmed what the researchers had found when the kids were three years old.

Bookstein also stated, “I tell my daughters not to worry about a drink a day, but don’t ever get drunk and be aware that after the second drink, you’re not going to be able to count.”

He goes on to state, “There’s just no evidence that a drink a day is causing any damage.”

Notice he stated that “after the second drink, you’re not going to be able to count.” Therein lies a major problem for Americans. We do not simple have one drink of anything. FAS is a terrible thing in the life of a child.

Secondly, he states, “there is no evidence that a drink a day is causing any damage.”

OK, that may well be true. I do not know. What most any of us do know is that the second, third, and beyond most definitely causes problems in our culture. We also definitely know women who do not use beverage alcohol never give birth to children who suffer the rest of their lives with FAS. We also know that in our culture most people do not stop at one and that includes Christians as well as non-Christians.

In my recent post related to the subject of beverage alcohol, I did not argue that the Bible does or does not forbid the use of beverage alcohol.

My argument has always been related to the wisdom of the use of beverage alcohol. The overriding question for me is always: Is it wise to use alcohol as a beverage in our culture?

That is why I entitled my post: Famous last words: I know when to quit. I can handle it.

Two things are reality, no matter how much one might argue for or against the use of beverage alcohol from Scripture by stating Scripture allows it or stating Scripture does not allow it:

1). The statement, “I know when to quit. I can handle it.” has been proven beyond doubt to be false in far too many lives. Many of those lives were/are Christians.

2). There are many children suffering from FAS who, if they could talk, would say, “My mother did not know when to quit. She could not handle it.”

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is caused by the use of beverage alcohol during pregnancy. Fred Bookstein may or may not have a child with FAS. I do not know. But I do know that far too many young, child-bearing age women in this current culture in which we live have thought and stated to their present horror:

You’re not going to give your child FAS by taking communion whether it’s once a month or once a week.

A woman can probably have the occasional glass of wine during pregnancy as all these studies suggest. As the father of a 3 month old whose wife breastfeeds, I’m not sure why anyone would chance it. Drink something else.

Now, as to caffeine, that can be abused and can become quite dangerous as well. I’m convinced it’s a gateway drug for some in high-pressure vocations. Start out with expresso shots at university to pull an all-nighter – end up snorted a line of coke while preparing for exams in medical or law school. I’ve seen it happen. The number of folks using drugs as a study aid in law school was shocking and the reason why they viewed me as a loner. I didn’t want to study with them and be around that mess.

Mostly Cherry Coke Zero and Diet Dr. Pepper. But I also use caffeine-free Diet Dr. Pepper so I don’t OD.

I’ve also found caffeine-free iced tea tastes just as good to me as that with caffeine.
David R. Brumbelow

January 11, 2012 12:48 pm

cb scott

Thanks David R. Brumbelow.

Also, I think Big Daddy makes a very valid statement about the problems we, as a culture, have problems with any type of addictive substance. We are an abusive culture. We abuse relationships. We abuse various substances.

Our particular culture ruins the institution of marriage with relationship abuse leading to divorce and hurting children.

Our same culture abuses various substances, beverage alcohol being one of them, prescription drugs being another, the list continues as we all know. And yes, we abuse food intake.

1 of 6 adults are binge drinkers. 80,000 deaths occur from binge drinking alone in the US each years according to a most recent study by Ursula Bauer of the CDC.

It seems that somewhere in this argument that wisdom is always called upon to take a back seat while we argue the pro and con of biblical prohibition, yet, we ignore the wisdom mandates easily gleaned from both the OT and the NT.

January 11, 2012 1:13 pm

Bill Mac

I can heartily agree to this. I love America, but there’s no question that we are over-consumptive in nearly everything. To Americans, more is always better, quantity is always better than quality.

January 11, 2012 1:23 pm

reformedsteve

Should we serve wine at the Lord’s table? No, because it is gross. 🙂

Seriously guys, for the interest of Christian unity let’s just serve grape juice. Yeah, you have the freedom to drink. But be mindful of your brother who may stumble because you exercise such freedom. Is beer/wine/whiskey worth your brother stumbling? Is it a hill worth dieing on? I’ve made up my mind. The Lord’s table is a place where we remember reconciling, I won’t pollute it with silly arguements that only serve to divide.

It is ironic that the “place” or perhaps I should “ordinance” which is to be a picture of our unity not only with Christ but with one another has caused a good amount of dissension. Not only today but even during the Reformation.

For me personally alcohol is not something worth either offending my brothers and sisters in Christ. Nor is it something worth causing someone else to “stumble” in a 1 Corinthians type of way.

But I don’t enjoy beer, whiskey, wine, or anything else like that. So for me to feel the full weight of this discussion I’d have to change it to something that I do thoroughly enjoy like baseball. And I suppose if I were in a community that legitimately was offended or people somehow stumbled because of my love for baseball–I’d like to think I’d readily give it up. But I fear the flesh and my consistently nagging idol of personal comfort would be a hard one to kill.

At the same time I also agree with D.A. Carson:
If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotallers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.

With the claims of some teetotallers I’m often torn as to whether I should choke down a beer or simply abstain for their benefit.

January 10, 2012 5:20 pm

Smuschany

So our unity today should be out of step with what was practiced in the 2nd Century? Because Clement of Alexandria clearly speaks of using alcoholic wine for the Lord’s supper. One could also take your argument and say that for the sake of “unity” no baptist should be a Calvinist. That for the sake of “unity” only piano and organ should ever be allowed during services. Or for the sake of “unity” any woman who does not bring a casserole to Wednesday meals should be kicked out of the church.

Someone earlier mentioned that some churches have both wine cups and juice cups in the tray, clearly delineated.

It is actually offensive to me that teetotalers set the parameters on this. Why do they get to deny me my freedom to have wine at communion? The whole stumble thing has been grossly misused to allow one camp on this adiaphora matter to dictate the rules. Can we not allow bot camps their freedom? One camp is free to use juice and one camp is free to use wine. Seems like a unifying way to go, unless the teetotalers are looking down on their brethren.

While I certainly understand what you are saying and I agree that “the whole stumble thing has been grossly misused”, I also think it would be to our benefit to be more like Paul in this regard. So what if you are being “wronged” and your freedom is being denied? Shouldn’t you allow them to deny you your freedom?

Mike, I saw that Carson quote. That’s a good word, and if I was in a virtual teetotaler community I would heed his advice as well. But very few such communities exist, at least as far as I know. Uness you count SBC churches as such.

But I would also teach on the subject to hopefully bring us all into a better understanding of what the scriptures teach. And I agree, it is not a simple thing.

I remember visiting a young woman back in Tennessee (with my EE group). She had visited the church and one of the things she asked was, “Can I wear pants in your church?” Mind you I was in John R Rice country. I would never go along with such notions for the sake of unity.

People need to gently and patiently be disabused of their misunderstanding of scripture and the application of scripture.

People need to gently and patiently be disabused of their misunderstanding of scripture and the application of scripture.

Yep. And it’s that word “patient” that makes me think that those of us non-teetotalers may sometimes miss the mark. For me I have to always be careful that I’m not just making a theological argument but I am loving others to the point of self-forgetfulness.

Instruct we must. But that takes time and all the while we have to be really careful that we do not wound the consciences of weak brothers and sisters.

Mike, I rarely even have a conversation about this. It’s not an issue in most of my circles. I’m just here talking about it because David posted about it. But yes, patiently instruct the “weaker brother” as you said.

January 10, 2012 6:01 pm

Smuschany

“Clearly Delineated”…ROFL…This reminds me of the first time I “partook” in alcohol, which just so happened to be during a communion service. It was at the funeral for my uncle who was a Lutheran Minister. I did not hear the Reverend when he said that the inner circle of the tray had grape juice for the youth and those who did not want alcohol. So obliviously, I grabbed from the outside rings (and wondered why the attendant gave me a weird look). After the service I said to my mom, “Mom that grape juice tasted funny”. To which she laughed and said “that’s because it wasn’t dear.” From what I was told by my aunt (moms sister) and my cousins, was that my uncle whom I really didnt know that well, would have really gotten a kick out of that.

@Les, who said “Why do they get to deny me my freedom to have wine at communion?”

Because you show your love by submission. I would remind you brother that it is not your freedom, but Christ’s freedom. You didn’t win it. You didn’t purchase it. You have it only because of grace. Use it not for self, but for the building up of the Body.

Neither side of this debate would say that it is unlawful to take communion with grape juice. If you press this issue, you deny others communion, because the juice-only folks will refuse the sacrament if wine is involved.

The Word instructs us not to act against our conscience, because those who do are not acting in faith. This is the dilemma that teetotalers find themselves in if you press this issue and must have your way.

What about those churches that provide both? It ruins the imagery of a single body and of a unified spirit. It instead shows division and that appeasement and not love is the ruling factor among that local church.

My advice for what it is worth, let God handle the conscience of the teetotalers. Are they wrong on this? Sure, but not to the point that they are outside of Christian fellowship. In public, let them have this one, but in private pray God will free them from their unsound doctrine. For they are still held captive by elementary prinicples and rules about do not touch or taste.

Love them more than they hate the idea of wine at the Lord’s Supper. No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care. If all you care about is “your” freedom, than you have a beam in your eye that must be removed before you can ever hope to remove the speck in theirs.

I fully understand what you are saying. I don’t live my life agitated over this issue and actually attend a church where Welch’s is used. It never comes up. On this forum it came up so I expressed my view.

I do think it is unfortunate that the weaker dictates on this issue. But we live and serve together and move on.

Two things though.

“I would remind you brother that it is not your freedom, but Christ’s freedom.” I have to disagree. he scriptures talk about OUR freedom in Christ. I realize He secured our freedom, but it is still described as ours.

Second, you said, “What about those churches that provide both? It ruins the imagery of a single body and of a unified spirit. It instead shows division and that appeasement and not love is the ruling factor among that local church.”

I don’t see that. I have been in churches where both are served and there was no disunity over that. It COULD do that. But so can using different forms of music. The fact of having both in and of itself is not the cause of disunity. Our sin is.

January 11, 2012 8:47 am

reformedsteve

Les,

Your second comment about a church serving both is absolutely correct. My arguement was based on my own human “wisdom” – a worse case.

I really don’t think we disagree. I love that passage. It’s beautiful. I was also thinking about several passages that refer to OUR freedom…which is obviously from Christ and in Christ. Yes, it is all about Him, but we don’t cease to be individuals created in Christ.

“Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out OUR freedom that we have in Christ Jesus,”

“For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use YOUR freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” A passage very appropriate to this discussion.

“Live as people who are free, not using YOUR freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.”

Blessings brother.

January 11, 2012 9:34 am

reformedsteve

Good passages, brother.

January 11, 2012 10:04 am

R.K. Brumbelow

‘reformed’ steve, the issue is not unity, it is the fact that some, like David, are adding to the law.

1. I have led several mission trips to the UK. In every instance, in worship where the table was observed (evangelical churches) wine was used and the youth on our trip partook with the full knowledge beforehand of their parents. No one got drunk. Most of these teens had never tasted wine. We talked about it later and they mostly were amazed what the big deal was all about.

2. I do mission work in Haiti partnering with Baptist and non-denominational evangelical pastors. Most of these pastors enjoy Prestige (Haitian brewed beer) when we have meals together. No big deal. I actually double dog dare any of you to go with me to Haiti, amidst the extreme poverty and recent earthquake devastation, and see how an argument about whether it is a sin to have that Prestige or not flies. They are dealing with so much more important matters. Like feeding children!

January 10, 2012 6:19 pm

volfan007

Les,

I have many people in my community who need help with food and their electric bills, so I smoke weed. They smoke weed. And, I’d dare you to come here and tell these people and me to stop smoking weed and using heroin and snorting coke. That wont fly around here, Dude, because we’ve got bigger fish to fry around these parts….

Do you see how silly that arguement is?

David

PS. The above comment was saracasm. I do not use drugs, including the drug, alcohol.

David, actually your response is what is kind of silly. My point was these godly pastors enjoying a beer and they woud see our argument over that as silly.

Besides, last time I checked “smoking weed and using heroin and snorting coke” was against the law. Alcohol consumption is not illegal. Try another tack.

January 11, 2012 12:50 am

volfan007

godly pastors enjoying weed and cocaine would see your arguement as silly. why shouldnt we enjoy weed and cocaine, or heroine? the Bible says nothing about them, and God made them. So, why shouldnt we make them legal and enjoy them….

“Are you really essentially saying that iIF something CAN cause death and destruction and heartache in families, and be addictive, that we should refrain from that something?”

January 11, 2012 7:45 am

Bill Mac

Les’ point was that abstentionism is primarily a modern, distinctly American evangelical phenomenon. It is not a widespread issue outside the states.

The Jews were not teetotalers, the early Christians were not teetotalers, the church has not historically been teetotalers and the church is not primarily teetotaler now.

Abstaining is a good and worthy pursuit for anyone when wisdom and conscience guide them in that direction. It is not a Christian Law. It is not part of the moral Law of the OT. It isn’t a law anywhere except in fundamentalist Islam. Christians don’t need more laws.

January 11, 2012 11:14 am

volfan007

Bill Mac and Les,

Are yall for making smoking weed legal? Are yall for smoking weed and using cocaine in moderation…for purely recreational purposes?

I really am puzzled why you keep bring weed and cocaine up in this conversation. I’ll repeat: marijuana and cocaine are illegal, except marijuana in some locations for medicinal purposes (at least I think I’ve read that). Some may know the laws in the US better than I.

As to whether I am for making “weed” legal, I think that states should be free to police marijuana as they police alcohol sales and consumption (at least they have laws on alcohol). As to whether a Christian should consume marijuana…I believe a Christian is free to do whatever is legal and within the moral law of God (which glorifies Him) and is consistent with the fruit of the Spirit.

There may be health related wisdom issues with marijuana. I don’t know. But that’s a different matter. Kind of like whether a Christian is free to eat 5 Big Macs a day. Is he free to do that? Is that a wise thing to do? I don’t think so.

In any case, it does not follow that because I believe in Christian liberty on alcohol that I also believe Christians have liberty to break current laws on illegal drugs.

January 11, 2012 11:52 am

Bill Mac

David: With respect, but the weed and cocaine arguments are always trotted out when the argument is being lost. The bible doesn’t address either. But is says plenty about alcohol. Nicotine is a dangerous and addictive substance whose delivery mechanism kills millions of people annually. In fact Southern Baptists have always been particularly devoted partakers of that particular deadly and addictive “weed”. But it is legal, and the bible doesn’t speak to it, so it isn’t really relevant.

I’ll say it again: Christians don’t need more laws.

January 11, 2012 11:58 am

Christiane

Hi DAVID BRUMBALOW,

I do recommend that you make an appointment and go to see a rabbi and talk about the way that the Passover meal is celebrated, and what it represents.
I think it may give you an added dimension into the Lord’s Supper that you missing, from what I can see in your post.
I know it will help you.
I do respect your stand, but there are some things about the Passover meal celebration that you might want to know about.

Christiane,
I agree that it is helpful to any to attend a Passover meal whether it is done by Christians or Jews. I’d recommend anyone to do so.

As previously stated, it is a fact that some Jews use fermented wine for Passover, some Jews use unfermented wine for Passover. So in effect, you can document and prove your view either way. My book has several quotes from Jewish sources along these lines.

By the way, I’ve heard some say Jews always use fermented wine for Passover. I’ve heard some say Jews always use unfermented wine for Passover. Both are incorrect.
David R. Brumbelow

January 11, 2012 10:15 am

Christiane

Hi DAVID,

The wine used for Passover meals is ‘kosher’ . . ..
I do hope you have an opportunity to converse with a Conservative Jewish rabbi concerning the meaning of Passover in their faith, and how the ‘celebration’ of that event is done, and why certain things are done. I do think it would add something to your present understanding.

Thanks for responding, David.

January 11, 2012 1:41 pm

bill

Very interesting conversation taking place here…

Everyone’s new year resolutions must still be in affect, usually by 80 comments we’ve just retreated into our corners and hurl insults at each other.

I enjoyed this post and the subsequent commentary.

Despite the fact that I do disagree with total abstinence, I applaud David Brumbelow’s efforts with this article.

Check out this article: Wine in the Ancient World by R.A. Baker, Ph.D., Ecclesiastical History. There is also an online version, but the pdf linked has the footnotes.

An excerpt.

My concern as an historian is to approach and present the evidence of antiquity with accuracy; this article is a response to some presentations which have failed to do this. It is an unfortunate fact that incorrect information regarding wine in the ancient world continues to be repeated. The data which is incorrectly presented, and which I want to address here, comes from non-Christian ancient writers including Pliny the Elder and Columella.1

The first major issue which always comes up is that all wine (oinos) was not
fermented, or alcoholic. Typically, discussion is offered on the meaning of certain Hebrew and Greek words. On this point there can be little argument; it is certain that people in the ancient world drank grape juice, and oinos was sometimes used to refer to fresh, non-alcoholic wine. At the same time, Paul uses oinos when he says, “Do not be drunk with wine” (Eph.5:18). To read a very good discussion on this topic by a trained
linguistic scholar, see “The Bible and Alcohol,” by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.2

Most articles I have found on this topic3 refer to Columella and Pliny the Elder, and unfortunately, most of these references misrepresent these ancient writers.

Do you think anyone got pulled over for driving camels under the influence? Just wondering.

January 10, 2012 10:30 pm

volfan007

which is a very good point to make….the Bible says that all the guests were “well drunk.” So, if you believe that all wine in the Bible was fermented, then was the wedding party smashed? gassed? tipsy? AND, that Jesus made them more wine to get more drunk on? I mean, are you attributing drunkeness to Jesus? that He was some kind of a bartender for a drunken party?

If you hold to the fermented wine is okay to drink view, and you really believe that Jesus turned this water into fermented wine; then you have got bigger problems than just whether it’s okay to drink alcohol, or not.

You are literally saying that Jesus contributed to their drunkeness, which is clearly a sin against God.

David

January 11, 2012 12:39 am

Smuschany

Your hermeneutical reading boarders on eisegesis at best. First off, it does not say “new” wine, it says “good wine”. And the head waiter says that after the guests drink the “good” wine first, then they are to serve the “poor” wine, because the people are too drunk to realize the difference. The point was that Jesus created the “good wine”, to which caused the waiter to get upset. Surely the waiter can tell the difference between “good wine” and this fabled “nonalcoholic grape juice” that you say existed Dave. For he uses the same words to describe the wine Jesus created as he did for the wine that you are suppose to serve first, that is the wine that gets people “buzzed” so they can not tell when the wine gets switched to the 2 dollar bottle variety.

David,
You make an excellent point. If one “interprets” this as alcoholic wine, then Jesus went to a drunken party and made great qualities more of alcohol.

That doesn’t sound like the holy, sinless, Jesus Christ of Scripture.

This is even more evidence in favor of those scholars who believe Jesus made new, un-intoxicating wine (oinos) in John 2.
David R. Brumbelow

January 11, 2012 10:04 am

volfan007

David B.,

I think these folks need to really rethink their position on alcohol and the Bible. Because, they are attributing a drunken party to Jesus, if they take the stand that they do. They’re calling Jesus nothing more than a glorified, bartender.

He particiapted in a drunken, wedding party…according to the fermented wine crowd….AND made more fermented wine for the party crowd to get more drunk on! So, I guess they’re not only insinuating that Jesus was a bartender, but that He was not even a good one! Because, a good bartender would not allow his clients to keep drinking after they’re stoned!

Yea, I think there’s real, big, big problems with this view of alcohol…that goes waaaaaay beyond just whether its okay to drink, or not.

I absolutely do not believe that a holy, sinless, God like Jesus would contribute to the sin of drunkeness.

Does it mean anything that these wedding feasts would often last for days?

January 11, 2012 12:25 pm

Chief Katie

Vol,

Are you using John 2:1-11 for your scripture or Acts? If so, I think you are really stretching the limits of credulity. Perhaps we are using different versions of the Bible.

This is the ESV

John 2
The Wedding at Cana
1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. 9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

This does NOT say that the people were ‘drunk’. It says that they had drunk freely. Freely might be one glass of wine. It might be two. But no where does it say the people were drunk. The Master then says “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. There is a difference between a verb and an adjective.

January 11, 2012 11:53 am

volfan007

Katie,

I doubt that drinking freely means one glass. And, more than one glass is getting on the verge of being intoxicated….so, even if I accept your view that “drinking freely” or “well drunk” means only a couple of glasses of wine….then, you’d still be saying that Jesus was making them MORE! in order to get drunk…because, intoxication would surely be taking place after a couple of glasses..would it not?

I know that I used to be pretty well lit after a couple of beers.

David

January 11, 2012 12:18 pm

Bill Mac

“New wine” does not necessarily mean unfermented wine. The apostles were accused of being drunk on new wine at pentecost.

In Acts 2:13 the disciples were “accused” by their enemies. they were mocked by their enemies.

That does not prove they were drunk, neither does it prove new wine was alcoholic.

As listed above, Aristotle said new wine, sweet wine would not intoxicate.
David R. Brumbelow

January 11, 2012 9:57 am

Bill Mac

David: With respect, the context is clear and aristotle’s opinion doesn’t mean anything here. The crowd was mocking them because they thought they were drunk on new wine. It takes a lot of hermeneutical gymnastics to arrive at something other than the plain reading of the text.

I will add 2 cents worth. Fermentation has been accomplished, when the grape juice has become wine as we know it. Leaven is present in the grape juice until the process of fermentation takes place. Thus, to drink grape juice is to drink that which symbolizes the presence of evil. Fermentation having taken place, the leaven is gone. The Jew in the passover feast (which involves wine – not grape juice) can identify which cup in the observance Jesus used to Introduce the Lord’s Supper. Having said the proceeding, I do not wish to be taken as an approver of social drinking, due to the fact that alcohol and driving do not mix. Anything afffecting one’s judgments and perceptions while driving a vehicle weighing in excess of a 2000 lbs in traffic at speeds of up to 70 MPH is to be avoided at all costs, not to mention the other evils that drunkeness involves.

Dr. James,
Great point. The yeast is only gone from wine once it becomes alcoholic because (as David knows) alcohol is poison to yeast. So, to answer the question in point 2, “Why use [alcohol] to represent the precious, pure, redeeming blood of Jesus?,” it is because the alcohol–like the blood of Christ–cleanses impurities. Seriously, if you don’t think the symbolism here is important you have missed the boat on all of Judaism and the Old Testament scriptures.

I can also transubstantiate cold medicine, but it has to be cherry. It has alcohol in it, is it evil too?

January 11, 2012 11:35 am

volfan007

Nyquil is the official Baptist Booze.

David 🙂

January 11, 2012 11:38 am

reformedsteve

LOL, like for real lol.

January 11, 2012 11:57 am

Bill Mac

Abstentionists like to make the Cana wedding out to be some type of hedonistic binge-fest, with drunken sots laying around and people puking around every column, like the 1st century Jewish equivalent of a week long frat-party. Why would Jesus attend such a gathering?

January 11, 2012 12:32 pm

Bill Mac

Another weak point in the abstentionist argument is that alcohol is the by-product of fermentation, which they suggest is synonymous with rotting or decay, and therefore the product should be avoided. Weak, bad science, bad logic.

Remember the booze troll? Some of the comments remind me of Dave’s recent troll post.

The Booze Troll – again, some of them are complete teetotallers and some of them are infrequent imbibers. But the Booze trolls twist posts into an argument over whether it is okay for Christians to sip a little wine now and again.

Maybe we need the “equivocation troll” or the “motive troll” for those folks who seem to like to stir things up and add nothing but frustration to the conversation. For the folks that assign ill motives to others regardless of the explanation given. Maybe a better name for such trolls would be the “adolescent troll” since these folks stir people up with assertions like 12 year olds would make to each other.

Storm Lake isn’t far from here. Winter’s been amazing this year, but it’s turning nasty now. Yeah, its not that unusual for us to go 20 below with wind chills must below that. But yesterday it was 62. I’m enjoying global warming so much I’ve started using flourocarbons!

In the early nineteenth century, the evangelical Protestants who started the temperance movement in America argued that there were two kinds of wine in ancient Israel: fermented and unfermented. Because they chose to abstain from drinking, they made the unfounded claim that Jesus abstained as well. They did this to justify their political campaign to ban alcohol, which ultimately resulted in Prohibition (1920-1933). The temperance movement’s claim for two kinds of wine was neither archaeologically, biblically, historically, nor scientifically correct, as we’ll see in this article. The reality is that Judaism has never had a theological issue with alcohol.

As I’ve said repeatedly, here and elsewhere, cb; nobody is arguing that the Bible doesn’t condemn drunkenness. I does. Often and repeatedly. The question is, “Was the wine served at Jesus’ Last Supper, which sets the stage/tone/background for all communion services down through church history to this present day, alcoholic wine?”

The preponderance of the evidence seems to be that it was.

So, now what?

Squirrel

January 11, 2012 10:46 pm

volfan007

So, Squirrel, are you saying that Jesus was a bartender? That He contributed to drunkeness at the Wedding in Cana?

David, let me ask you this: Is not God responsible for the creation of everything?

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.
(Colossians 1:16)

Sinners misuse God’s good creation constantly, do they (we!) not? God created the chemical/biochemical processes which produce all drugs and alcohol. Does God contribute to all drunkenness and drug abuse?

Ponder these things…

Squirrel

January 11, 2012 11:06 pm

cb scott

Squirrel,

If you will take notice, I have never made an argument based upon the wine used in the Bible being or not being alcoholic in nature.

My argument has always been based on the wisdom of the use of beverage alcohol in our culture.

cb, I am much more sympathetic to that argument! At least it isn’t based on rank eisegesis and bad historiography! 😀

The abuse of alcohol is a blight on our society. That is why, with the Scriptures, I heartily oppose the sin of drunkenness.

But, like all sins, there seems to be a dichotomy between use and abuse. Sex has a legitimate use within a marriage. All use outside of marriage is the abuse of God’s gift of sex. Drugs have a legitimate use within medicine. So called “recreational” use is abuse of God’s gift. Why is it so hard to see any legitimate use of beverage alcohol? There certainly seems to be such.

Ancient Israelites, with the possible exception of a few teetotaling Nazirites and their moms, proudly drank beer—and lots of it. Men, women and even children of all social classes drank it. Its consumption in ancient Israel was encouraged, sanctioned and intimately linked with their religion. Even Yahweh, according to the Hebrew Bible, consumed at least half a hin of beer (approximately 2 liters, or a six-pack) per day through the cultic ritual of libation, and he drank even more on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:7–10). People who were sad were advised to drink beer to temporarily erase their troubles (Proverbs 31:6). Yet the Biblical authors also called for moderation. Several passages condemn those who consumed too much beer (Isaiah 5:11, 28:7; Proverbs 20:1, 31:4). The absence of beer defines a melancholy situation, according to Isaiah 24:9.

January 11, 2012 10:38 pm

volfan007

Mark,

Is this fella actually saying that Yahweh, God, drinks beer!!!!! Oh my goodness, where’d you dig up this nut. lol …does this fella tell us what brand God likes? Bud Lite, or Miller Lite…I mean, it would have to be a light beer…you know, the whole gluttony thing….lol. Wow.

And so, you are also saying that Jesus was a bartender at the wedding in Cana? that He contributed to drunkeness?

I didn’t run from the word, David. I just want to know what the difference is between God’s creation of alcoholic beverages through natural processes over time, and Jesus’ creation of alcoholic beverages in a miraculous event? How does one make Him more responsible than the other?

Squirrel

January 11, 2012 11:53 pm

Chief Katie

You are using the word ‘bartender’ improperly and apparently intentionally to make the scripture imply something it does not say. There is nothing in the example of the wedding at Cana that suggests anyone drank wine to excess, or that anyone became drunk with wine.

If you have to resort to such tactics to try to improve your argument, then you have lost the argument up-front.

About Bartender…
I’ve read several Christian authors who are for social drinking who have said the people at the wedding at Cana were drunk. Some said just a little tipsy; some said out and out drunk.

They have pointed out they had already drunk all the wine, and that would have been a lot. They also point out Jesus made over 120 gallons more of wine – that’s a lot. They also point out the master of the feast spoke of how commonly after people had “well drunk” (methuo – some, not all translate it as always intoxicated), they bring out the inferior wine. So they assume these people had “well-drunk.” They also assume all of the above was alcoholic wine.

So these are the points they make and yes, they do present Jesus as a bartender or at least a drug supplier.

I don’t believe this, and I know not all social drinkers believe this, but some certainly do.

David W. is in good company.

Adrian Rogers said,
“Every time the Bible uses the word wine it does not necessarily mean that which is intoxicating. In the Bible there is wine that is intoxicating. In the Bible there is wine that is not intoxicating. And if you don’t understand that you are going to be hopelessly confused. You’re going to think Jesus perhaps became the original distiller when He turned water into wine. No, not at all.” -Adrian Rogers, The Battle of the Bottle.
David R. Brumbelow

January 12, 2012 12:26 pm

Bill Mac

Wine is not distilled.

January 12, 2012 11:36 pm

Bill Mac

The process by which yeast converts sugar to alcohol is a process created by God. So using your deliberately inflammatory language, God has always been a “bartender” or “drugdealer” since He “makes” all these things. Really, it is when people resort to these kinds of arguments that you can see they are desperate to score points. There is nothing biblical about them. Make your biblical case and let people agree or disagree, but when you bring in the “drinking is the same as mainlining heroin” type language, constructive discussion is pretty much over.

Sinners misuse God’s good creation constantly, do they (we!) not? God created the chemical/biochemical processes which produce all drugs and alcohol. Does God contribute to all drunkenness and drug abuse?

&

I just want to know what the difference is between God’s creation of alcoholic beverages through natural processes over time, and Jesus’ creation of alcoholic beverages in a miraculous event? How does one make Him more responsible than the other?

So far, nobody wants to try to deal with it…

Squirrel

January 12, 2012 11:59 pm

Fuente

Let’s change the topic to cigar smoking. Surely, you do not think smoking a cigar is a sin? First, your taste buds are not in your lungs, their in your mouth. Second, the same taste buds that allow you to enjoy that chocolate you indulge in, are the same taste buds that allow you to enjoy a tasty Dominican stick. Yes?

I agree with cb (SHOCK!), some have been civil, others have not. I hope my comments have fallen into the range of the former. cb’s certainly have, in my opinion, been civil, even though we are on opposite sides of this issue.

Squirrel

January 11, 2012 11:44 pm

RJM

You say that, “There are no harmful side effects of unfermented wine.”

What about cavities?

January 11, 2012 11:15 pm

Bill Mac

Grape juice is extremely high in sugar. High sugar in diets puts people at risk for obesity related diseases and diabetes. The pancreas will often overcompensate for a high sugar load by overproducing insulin, which can in turn lower blood sugar to levels below normal, sometimes resulting in diabetic shock. People in diabetic shock are in a highly impaired state that is sometimes mistaken for alcohol inebriation.

January 12, 2012 12:59 am

RJM

Now that I know that grape juice can lead to diabetes I will abstain from grape juice and press and push till others abstain from grape juice as well. If they do not I will assume that they are not as holy as I am and do not love Jesus as much as I do.

Many people are surprised to learn that orange juice naturally contains a small amount of alcohol. The alcohol has not been added to the juice, but is produced by fermentation which occurs when yeasts or bacteria convert sugars into carbon dioxide and alcohol. There are many naturally-occurring yeasts on the orange peel, and some of them get into the juice when the orange is handled or squeezed.

Paul Davis from the USDA Market Quality Research Division measured the amount of ethanol in citrus fruits at harvest (ethanol is the “drinking alcohol” – the main form of alcohol in wines, beers and spirits). He found large variations according to the variety of fruit and also according to the month of harvest. Fruit picked towards the end of the harvest season was highest in ethanol (because the yeasts have had longer to convert sugar to alcohol). The exception was the Valencia Orange, which had a fairly constant alcohol content throughout the season.

The amounts that Paul Davis measured were very low, the highest being just under 0.07% alcohol by weight (equivalent to around 0.09% alcohol by volume) in Valencia Oranges.

After the orange is picked the ethanol content continues to increase, depending on how long and in what conditions the orange is stored. To reduce spoilage, fruit is sometimes stored in an artificial atmosphere. Davis also treated his fruits with fungicide. After eight weeks of storage he obtained ethanol readings up to 0.31% ABW (0.39% ABV).

Ok, so what % is ok according to teetotalers? 0.0001? If no alcohol is to be consumed for enjoyment or as a beverage, what about OJ?

January 12, 2012 12:49 am

Chief Katie

Vol,

I am the daughter of a severe alcoholic. Really severe. It was so bad that it eventually killed him. He experienced alcoholic psychosis, paranoia and all the things that go with that.

Despite that, I cannot agree with you about alcohol. The Bible does not forbid the use of alcohol. Many people can drink moderately and never have a problem. I personally do not drink because I believe there is a likely genetic link within families. I’m not taking any chances.

Cardiologists have said repeatly that moderate use of alcohol is actually good for the circulatory system. And… there is nothing wrong with benefiting from its relaxing properties. Stress is every bit as bad for the human body as overuse of alcohol.

God has created everything humans use in terms of medication, food, etc. By themselves, there is nothing sinful about any of them. It is reckless use of pharmaceuticals that causess the problems.

I respect your right to have a different view. But it does bother me when scripture is twisted to support an idea that just isn’t there.

January 12, 2012 12:58 am

volfan007

Katie,

I’m saying that it’s foolish, according to Proverbs, to drink alcohol for recreational purposes. It’s sinful to get drunk on it. It’s not wise to drink something that you know can get a hold on your life. It can bite you like a poisonous snake. A person shouldnt play around with fire.

I dont think that its sinful to drink alcohol, otherwise we couldnt drink Baptist Booze(Nyquil), when we’re sick….couldnt cook with it…etc. But, to just drink an intoxicating drink that could do as much damage as alcohol can do is foolish…very, very foolish. I believe that Proverbs teaches this very clearly. Then, common sense should also tell us this, whenever we see the damage that alcohol does to the lives of so, so, so many people in our world. You’ve seen it first hand. I’ve seen it…too many times.

David

January 12, 2012 8:47 am

Jeff

I think the primary points and best points for abstention, are the “slippery slope” issue, and alcohol’s societal association with a worldly lifestyle. I think those ideas are the basis for the scriptural warnings against it’s recreational use.
The Lord’s supper use seems settled to me. If the bread is to be unleavened, so is the drink.

1)If one of the “best points for abstention” is “alcohol’s societal association with worldly things,” what if there are places in the world and even in our country where alcohol is not associated with worldliness any more than watching TV or going to sporting events? Is the propriety of alcohol consumption then based on the immediate culture and their attitude toward alcohol?

2)If the assertion that unleavened grape juice is actually alcoholic wine (where all the leaven is used up in the fermentation process) is accurate, would you then advocate not only the option of using wine, but mandate the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper (since non-alcoholic grape juice would be leavened)?

Just trying to understand.

January 12, 2012 4:46 pm

John Wylie

Just wanted to say that your second point is curious, because if all the leaven is “used up” in fermented wine couldn’t the same thing be said of leavened bread?

Having said that I personally have no problem one way or the other with wine or unferemented grape juice since the Bible doesn’t command one way or the other in respect to the Lord’s Supper.

January 12, 2012 4:52 pm

Daviss Woodbury

I was referring to the claim made by Dr. James Willingham earlier (Jan. 11, 12:08 am – comment 147):

“I will add 2 cents worth. Fermentation has been accomplished, when the grape juice has become wine as we know it. Leaven is present in the grape juice until the process of fermentation takes place. Thus, to drink grape juice is to drink that which symbolizes the presence of evil. Fermentation having taken place, the leaven is gone. The Jew in the passover feast (which involves wine – not grape juice) can identify which cup in the observance Jesus used to Introduce the Lord’s Supper. Having said the proceeding, I do not wish to be taken as an approver of social drinking, due to the fact that alcohol and driving do not mix. Anything afffecting one’s judgments and perceptions while driving a vehicle weighing in excess of a 2000 lbs in traffic at speeds of up to 70 MPH is to be avoided at all costs, not to mention the other evils that drunkeness involves.”

My statement was conditioned with “IF” this is accurate, would it then necessarily hold that those who mandate unleavened elements in the Lord’s Supper would require the use of wine.

John Wylie,
You said, “because if all the leaven is ‘used up’ in fermented wine couldn’t the same thing be said of leavened bread?

An excellent point.

Using this argument in favor of fermented wine for the Lord’s Supper would void all reason to use unleavened bread for Passover or the Lord’s Supper.
David R. Brumbelow

January 14, 2012 3:26 pm

Bill Mac

There is no mandate to use unleavened bread in the LS. I daresay Baptist churches all over the world use leavened bread in the LS.

January 12, 2012 11:34 pm

Jeff

This is probably a hornets nest that I do not want to kick over, so maybe I can gently lay it on it’s side.

All cultures and cultural issues are subject the holiness spoken of in the Word. When I speak of something being “associated with worldliness”, I am applying “worldliness against the standard of the Word” and not according to the variations of the culture.

Whatever the culture, fornication, is unacceptable to the Word.
Whatever the culture, cursing, swearing, and foul langauge is mutually exclusive from a holy life.
That being said, “The obviously wrong side” of recreational alcohol, regardless of culture, is excluded from a lifestyle of holiness.
– Hence the slippery slope

Is it possible you intended this comment for a different post? Just wondering.

January 12, 2012 5:42 pm

Daviss Woodbury

Dave, I think Jeff’s comment was in response to my comment on his comment about alcohol’s societal association with worldliness.

Jeff, I understand your reasoning and absolutely agree that truth is truth regardless of culture and that morality transcends societal standards. But you are still working from the assumption that any amount of beverage alcohol is worldly, sinful (I’m assuming), and contrary to holiness. You can believe that if you want, but you need to make the case rather than simply stating it as fact.

The arguments for grape juice don’t carry much weight due to the fact that Baptists prior to the abstinence movement used wine (and I mean alcoholic wine). In fact as late as the last 10 years, there were members of the Seniors class who remembered the person who was appointed to secure the wine for communion. On the other hand, church discipline was exercised in those days. I think we all need to take a careful view of the use of wine. I was in a Mexican Restaurant earlier this week, and I saw a fellow with a big beer mug on his table. Setting across the table was his young son (perhaps 8-9 years old). I wondered how he would feel, if that beer dulled his senses enough to have a wreck and kill his son (assuming that that was his son). While I believe in the use of the original elements, and the claims to the contrary not withstanding, I know Jews, too, who could speak with some assurance on the issue, I do not believe in carelessness in the matter. In my own case, except for some now and then for stomach before bed, I do not make use of it. How many military personnel have been killed or hae killed others, due to drinking. A famous case in our TV area involved a doctor who killed a ballerina (age 20), due to his being drunk and driving fast. I would not want something like that on my conscience. As to the idea of changing the elements, thee are those in the wings who stand to benefit from the mix-up over the matter. Get to know your Bible and follow it carefully.

January 12, 2012 11:26 pm

Jeff

Bro. Woodbury,

My apologies for not being clearer.

My primary point concerning the “worldliness” issue was in relation to the “obviously wrong side of recreational alcohol – meaning abuse.” That was not intended as a sweeping statement of fact with no basis.

Alcoholism in any culture is contrary to scripture, to which we obviously agree. But alcoholism, revelry, and the issues discussed in (1st Peter 4:3-4; Galatians 5:21, Isaiah 5:22) are a foundation for the “slippery slope” discussion. Which is all that I was intending to state.

I do believe that abstinence is the Biblical standard. But not merely because of the chemical makeup of the beverage. Since this post has been well commented, I don’t have the time or space here to explain why I do believe it is the Biblical standard, but the pure chemical makeup is not one of them.

As to the LS use – while we can discuss the chemical makeup of grape juice and wine all day, and while we can discuss the linguistics of the texts all day, at the end of the day, – Grape Juice is a fruit of the vine, without controversy. It clearly, in and of itself is more than suitable to fit the text and the occasion. It can be taken unilaterally without doubt. I know there are those who do not “doubt” the wine. However there in is the controversy. There is no “general” controversy with juice; but there will always be controversy with “wine.”

One other issue in the LS, is that I can’t see giving alcoholic wine to children.

I’ve enjoyed the discussion.

January 13, 2012 10:38 am

Daviss Woodbury

Jeff,
Thanks so much for clarifying. I understand much better now where you are coming from. I, too, have enjoyed the conversation. Though we come to different conclusions regarding the use of alcohol in general and in the Lord’s Supper, I have been challenged and sharpened by our exchange. God’s blessings on you, brother.

Earlier CB Scott said,
“It seems that somewhere in this argument that wisdom is always called upon to take a back seat while we argue the pro and con of biblical prohibition, yet, we ignore the wisdom mandates easily gleaned from both the OT and the NT.”

I believe the Bible directly condemns beverage alcohol.

However, I certainly also agree with the “wisdom principle” that leads people to abstain from alcohol.

So for the record, I’m not arguing one against the other. I believe in both.
David R. Brumbelow

January 14, 2012 3:54 pm

Guy

I don’t have the time or patience to read this entire thread….but from what I have read, and in regard to the author, it saddens me to see so many “Christians” judging everyone. Jesus himself said he did not come to judge but to save the world. Yet so many times the most judgmental people are those filling the pews each Sunday. To the author and those bashing wine I have one quote from the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5:23 “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.” I don’t know of any reason why sweet grape juice alone would be used for the stomach or for “infirmities” which literally means “ailments”.

And lastly and most importantly, how much time has everyone spent quarreling over this minor topic? How much better could all of your time and efforts been used for the glory of God? I leave you with one final passage that all of the people judging and arguing and bashing wine use in the Lord’s Supper need to read. It’s chapter 14 of the book of Romans. It teaches us that we should all be accepting of our different but trivial differences in worshiping God. 14:5 “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” And verse 22 “Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.”

Bottom line, the Lord wishes we spent our time glorifying Him and spreading his good Word, not having denominational quarrels over trivial matters. Romans 14 clearly points out that what you TRULY and HONESTLY believe is right in God’s eye, then so be it. The Bible warns about becoming “drunkards” but also clearly has no problem with wine in general. Do some people abuse alcohol and sin as a result? Sure. Do some people abuse the internet and sin as a result? Sure. Do some people abuse power (pastors, priests, etc. too) and sin as a result? You bet. But does that mean that they themselves are evil? Just as guns do not murder people, rather people murder people; alcohol does not sin. It’s the person who sins while abusing it that is the problem. What about all of the overweight and obese people of Christ that are incredibly unhealthy as a result. Do you think they aren’t abusing food? Being overweight is much worse on your body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit, than a few glasses of wine a week are. In fact, a few glasses of red wine is actually GOOD for the body and heart. It is not our job to judge sins or create man made lists of what sins are worse than others. Sin is sin. We all need to stop worrying about who we are in each others eyes, and only worry about who we are in the Lord’s eyes. Know your God, have a relationship with your God, and strive to bring people to know Him as well. This is the will of our Lord. And we should leave the judging up to Him. Thank you all for your time, and may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen and preserve you in the true faith to eternal life. Amen.

February 21, 2012 4:31 pm

cb scott

I don’t have the time or patience to read this entire thread….but from what I have read, and in regard to the author, it saddens me to see so many “Christians” judging everyone.”

Well Guy,

It is quite obvious from your comment that you should have taken the “time” and had the “patience” to read the post and the whole comment thread.

But you did not, yet you did take the “time” and exercised the “patience” as a “Christian” to judge “everyone” in the thread along with the author of the post. Amazing.

“I don’t have the time or patience to read this entire thread….but from what I have read, and in regard to the author, it saddens me to see so many “Christians” judging everyone.”

This may be one of the things that is wrong with blogging. We do not take the time to read and understand, we just judge others without taking that time.

And, Guy, are you not judging everyone here?

February 21, 2012 4:50 pm

Guy

No Dave I’m not in fact “judging everyone here” or anyone here for that matter. I came across this blog while researching a passage. After reading halfway through the first section of comments, I felt the desire to share my thoughts and biblical references which I outlined and stated. I did not condemn, judge, or bash anyone or anything. My quoting or Romans 14 was a clear and purposefully stated to remind us ALL that we shouldn’t waste time quarreling over things such as this. Again, so sorry to offend whoever was offended. It was not the intent, which was in fact to try and unify people to glorifying the Lord and not internal fighting. May God’s peace be with you all.

For the record, I’m not a prohibitionist. But the disconnect between “I didn’t read the comments” and then to call everyone to account struck me as inconsistent.

I’m not offended, just thought it was a little bit inconsistent.

February 21, 2012 5:06 pm

Guy

Thank you Dave. I wish I had chose those words better. I DID in fact read most all responses as well as the original article. My response was directed to the author of the article as well as mainly to those stating that the only use of alcohol was “to get high”. I have just recently finished a study of Romans 14 and when I came across this, I felt the Lord wanted me to share this. I am not a Baptist minister, and of another denomination, and my apologies again if this is a “Baptist” only site. The main thing I wanted to get across was what we can ALL learn from Romans 14:1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them….16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God IS NOT a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” I truly feel these words from Paul clearly show us the true answer to the question in this debate. Would you agree?

February 21, 2012 5:25 pm

Guy

So sorry to offend you all. Not the purpose whatsoever. And I wasn’t referring to EVERYONE, just as I pointed out. To the people that were bashing alcohol and making judgements. That’s it. No offense intended folks. I was being sincere.

February 21, 2012 4:53 pm

cb scott

“I felt the Lord wanted me to share this.”

So Guy,

This one is on God? Well, I guess that just settles it. God told you to do it so that makes you just the messenger and off the hook for your rude behavior and judgmental spirit, right?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You were also “being sincere.”

Well those are the Big Two: 1). God told me and 2). I am sincere.

Can’t argue with either of those and when used together a fellow’s word becomes completely inerrant, right?

Well, here is my opinion. God didn’t tell you anything. You pulled that one out of the sky all on your own. And your sincereness is simply a skin of self-righteousness pulled over a skeleton of hypocrisy.

BTW, that is only my opinion. am not going to blame God for one bit of it. I would advise you to do the same in the future.

Guy,
I’m the author of the article. You’re welcome to agree or disagree. But I wrote it out of deep conviction that I sincerely believe is from Scripture.

You mention overeating. The Bible condemns gluttony, but many seem to misunderstand the meaning. Just being overweight is not what the Bible means as gluttony.

The Holman Bible Dictionary says:
“Glutton – One habitually given to greedy and voracious eating; associated with stubbornness, rebellion, disobedience, drunkenness, and wastefulness (Deuteronomy 21:20). A more general meaning for the Hebrew term as a ‘good-for-nothing’ (Proverbs 28:7, TEV) is reflected in some translations: ‘wastrel’ (Deuteronomy 21:20 REB); ‘profligate’ (Deuteronomy 21:20 NIV; Proverbs 28:7 REB); ‘riotous’ (Proverbs 28:7, KJV). Jesus was accused of being a ‘gluttonous man, and a winebibber’ (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34) in this expanded sense of being one given to loose and excessive living. The Bible shows gluttony makes one sleepy, leading to not working and poverty (Proverbs 23:21).”

So gluttony is not just someone eating a bigger meal than you.

I’ve given the reasons for my beliefs in the main article and the comments above. I’ve also done so more extensively in a book, including a detailed study of Scripture.

I, along with most Baptists, believe beverage alcohol is wrong. But we should all be careful of being too judgmental.
David R. Brumbelow

February 21, 2012 6:31 pm

Guy

Hi David and thank you for an honest and non-confrontational reply.

I never meant to spark or stir up so many emotions in my response. I am familiar with gluttony and the scriptural references to it. I wasn’t referring to merely eating a second helping at the buffet from time to time. I for one have known people close to me that have struggled with eating habits and addictions that were similar to chemical addictions. They abused food as it temporarily comforted them and as you know, just caused them to get worse and worse. My reference was to shed light on the fact that WE (yes that includes me!), tend to sympathize with people addicted to food, and who choose to overindulge daily on it, than we do to people with drug/alcohol addiction.

Even though I disagree in whole with your article, it was well written and I see the validity of both sides to this issue. Hence, the reason I wanted to share Romans 14 in hopes that for anyone reading this that was not familiar with this chapter of Romans, might find it helpful.

Again, I thank you for your friendly response but I’m just shocked at the others who chose a different route.

God’s peace be with you.

February 21, 2012 7:45 pm

Guy

I’m sorry you were so offended Pastor Scott. And I’m not sure how any of it came across as rude and judgmental. I was in fact being sincere. Everything I said came from the heart as I felt moved by the Holy Spirit. Everything I said was meant to be reflected upon and for the reader to draw their own conclusion. I thought the biblical passages I referenced were of great relevance and help to this topic. However, all you seem to have done is mock what I wrote, and responded with bitterness and hatefulness and calling me a “skeleton of hypocrisy”. I’m frankly quite shocked that a Pastor would respond with the words that you have. This is no example of brotherly or philos love. It makes me think of James 3:8-12 “8 But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? 12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Thus no spring yields both salt water and fresh.”

Pastor Scott, this will be my final reply to you regardless of what you respond back with. I will let you have the last word, as I fear this would just keep continuing as I am an outsider to this group. We are all children of the Lord, and we are to love one another as the Lord has loved us. I urge that as you Pastor your church, you have more patience with their statements, concerns and beliefs as you have with me. I am grateful to the kind, compassionate and caring pastors I had who educated me over my 30+ years and for never becoming impatient or angry with any statements or concerns I had. This quite possibly is what lead me to the seminary. If we respond to people with the way you have me, how are we being good representatives of Christ? I leave you with one more scripture. Luke 6:41-42 “1 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye.”

(Now to be frank with you, you seriously could use a lesson in manners. To be a pastor and to mock someone who tried shedding a new light on a subject by quoting scriptures is nothing shy of saddening.)

May God bless you and guide you in your continued growth in Christ.

-Concerned Lutheran

February 21, 2012 7:33 pm

cb scott

Guy,

Giving me the last word is fine with me. So let me state, in order to be perfectly clear, about my comments to you relating to your false piety and you blaming God for your self-righteous comments, I meant ever word and still do.

Since Baptists, apparently based on all the records and histories I have had the privilege of reading, used wine in the Lord’s Supper until the Abstinence movement and, as I mentioned above, that members of one Senior class remember even the gentleman who years before had been appointed to secure the wine for the supper, it follows that we have changed the elements in the Supper. While I do not approve of drinking in a social since, due, for example, to the effect on drivers in our society, I do think we must obey the examples given by Holy Scripture. The cup of the Passover, which one this was was identified for me once by one who had been raised as a Jew, was alcoholic. I also have a friend who was raised an Orthodox Jew and who is now a Baptist preacher, and he confirmed the same. There is other evidence in Scripture ample enough to establish the nature of the wine in the communion cup. All of the efforts to make it out to be non-alcoholic inevitably fail. All of the mother churches of Southern Baptists of which I have knowledge used alcoholic wine in their early history. One could correlate with the decline in the use of the proper elements with the decline in church discipline. In other words, when they used wine, they exercised discipline. Once they changed the elements, people began to get drunk without any discipline for their conduct. I once had a discussion with a friend who had written his Dissertation for the Th.D., seeking to prove that the original element was grape juice. He did not really seek to maintain that view, but I respected him as a good man…and even a godly one. Everything we believe and practice has been questioned, investigated, examined, criticized, refuted, proved, disproved, etc., more times than I would care to count. One can win the argument and lost his own soul in the process. It behooves us to be gentle, humble, and careful in these matters, and one must be willing to face the truth, unpleasant as it might well be.

Dr. Willingham,
You say
“Since Baptists…used wine in the Lord’s Supper until the Abstinence movement…it follows that we have changed the elements in the Supper.”

No, it does not follow. Ever considered the Baptists of 1800 were the ones who mistakenly changed the elements of the Lord’s Supper to alcohol? There are references to the early church using nonalcoholic wine for the Lord’s Supper. Sometimes they simply squeezed the grapes into the cup; and yes, they knew how to keep grapes fresh throughout the year.

You say,
“All of the mother churches of Southern Baptists of which I have knowledge used alcoholic wine in their early history.”
That may or may not be true, but using such logic we could also argue in favor of slavery since that was the norm until the middle 1800s.

You just assume the wine of the Lord’s Supper was alcoholic. As previously mentioned, it does not even call the element of the Lord’s Supper “wine,” and if it did, Scripture and ancient writers used the same words to describe both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine. So either view becomes an interpretation, not you just taking the Bible for what it says.

Nonalcoholic wine was common in Bible days and more easily made and preserved than alcoholic wine. It was sought after and highly esteemed. The book “Ancient Wine and the Bible” goes into great detail demonstrating this from both the Bible and other ancient references.

You pronounce the cup of Passover was alcoholic. You “prove” this by referring to a couple of Jews.

First, there are other Jews who would contradict this view. I know. Some are quoted in “Ancient Wine and the Bible.” You can prove this either way with such evidence.

Second, since when have the Jews ever perfectly followed Scripture? They are kind of like Baptists in that regard :-).

You say,
“Once they changed the elements, people began to get drunk without any discipline for their conduct.”

This is a strange view. One of the very reasons for the Temperance / Prohibition / Abstinence movement was that drinking was getting out of hand. Some even preaching drunk in the pulpit.

As Adrian Rogers said, “Moderation is not the cure for drunkenness, it is the cause of drunkenness.” Most every alcoholic began as a moderate drinker.

Finally, I do not believe Baptists, in opposing beverage alcohol, have lost their souls on this issue. Rather they are lovingly warning of great danger.
David R. Brumbelow

February 22, 2012 10:21 am

Bill Mac

Sometimes they simply squeezed the grapes into the cup; and yes, they knew how to keep grapes fresh throughout the year.

The ancients could preserve grapes fresh and squeezable from the time of harvest to the next harvest? I wasn’t aware that such a techniques exists even today.

Bill Mac,
Most do not know of this, but that in no way means it is untrue.

Some grapes were known as good keepers. These were grapes that had a tough skin and adhered well to the cluster. Several varieties of modern grape varieties have these characteristics. The “Fruit Gardener” put out some of this information in a 1999 issue.

Ancients would clip, not pull, any inferior grapes from the cluster. Pulling leaves a brush that attracts mold. They would hang the grapes from the ceiling, put them in a root cellar, or pack them in containers. Sometimes they dipped the end of the stem in tar to seal it. These grapes would keep fresh for months.

“Ancient Wine and the Bible” goes into detail about this and provides a number of ancient and modern references to this practice. It was very common until pasteurization and electricity. I have an 1820 book, and an 1827 book that both speak of this.

This was only one of the ways Jews and Christians could easily produce fresh grape juice or unfermented wine at any time of the year.
David R. Brumbelow

Dear Bro. Brumbelow: Your approach is that of advocacy which I fear will not be confused with the facts. I added what I found in historical research. Advocacy has a tendency to blind one to all facts to the contrary. I speak not of advocacy as a wrong, but of a problem with it. It is also a problem with our modern scientific approach; it is the paralysis of analysis. Your way of setting up to prove your point is that of advocacy with the problem of tending to blind one to all facts to the contrary. There is no answering such approach. It is much like the evolutionists , when confronted by the inversion of dated strata. They say it must have been by slippage, the older slipping up over the younger layers and lying conformably (a hundred thousand square miles without fracturing or faulting??). My friend who was raised an orthodox Jew along with others are quite clear about the cups used in the Passover and the one used by our Lord to introduce the communion of the cup in the Last Supper, and the historical practice of our founding churches can hardly be disallowed by the use of the red herring of slavery. And as to the matter of discipline and grape juice, having been exposed to that reality in pastoring, I am hardly impressed by your strange remark. As to Adrian Rogers, I am reminded of the fact of what Dr. R.G. Lee had to say about the Grand Piano which Dr. Rogers was pleased to repeat.

This is a collection of quotes from a wide variety of standard reference works. They reveal a universal understanding that the “two-wine theory” that claims Biblical wine was often unfermented is without historical foundation. I did not find any reference work that supported the concept of unfermented wine. If anyone teaches that unfermented wine was commonly used in Bible times, his claim must be made in spite of the available scholarship, not because of it. The following quotes are the result of my research with minimal added comment.

Brother Brumbelow: Mark has provided a link to a site that provides an extended discussion of the matter of wine and unfermented juice int he Bible. My main contention has simply been to point out that our founding churches used wine in the communion. Your own relative takes issue with you and notes your rather one-sided approach. And, of course, I could be guilty of advocacy, but you will please note that I seek to be very careful about how I advocate the matter and I am no great supporter of social drinking, especially in view of the matter of driving cars. Are you going to demand that I absolutely conform to your way of thinking? Please, note I am merely trying to reason about the matter. Since, I am bound by the Book, I cannot define alcohol as a poison and reason as you have done. When the reasoner alone defines the terms, the conclusions are foregone as any student of logic is well aware. When the reasoner must make allowance for variances in usage as is the case with reference to the Bible and wine, then care must be taken to not ride rough shod over the rights of another to differ on an issue.

Many authorities recognize that “wine” in the Bible and ancient times referred to both nonalcoholic and alcoholic wine.
They recognize wine could be preserved in a nonalcoholic state.
A few examples:

Dr. John Kitto, D.D., F.S. A., was one of the most respected Bible scholars of the 1800s. He had lived in the Middle East and had an extensive knowledge of Bible times and customs. Charles H. Spurgeon highly praised Kitto’s scholarship. In Kitto’s Popular Cyclopedia he says,
“No fewer than thirteen distinct Hebrew and Greek terms are rendered in our common version by the word ‘wine.’ Besides the pure juice of the grape, frequent mention is made in Scripture of a kind of boiled wine or syrup, the thickness of which rendered it necessary to mingle water with it previously to drinking (Proverbs 9:2,5).”

“The newly pressed wine prior to fermentation was known as yayin mi-gat.” -Encyclopaedia Judaica; 1971.
Notice this Jewish Encyclopedia used both “wine” and “yayin” to refer to unfermented wine or grape juice.

“Yayin – what is pressed out, grape juice.” -Young’s Concordance

“On the Use of Wine in the Old Testament says, “Yayin can refer either to fresh juice or to fermented wine…That is, not the strained interpretation of a few verses or some doubtful etymological data, but a host of strong evidence points to the fact that yayin can mean not only wine but also grape juice, and that God’s purpose for the vine was the latter.” -Dr, Robert Teachout, 1979 DTS doctoral dissertation, The Use of Wine in the Old Testament.

“It is tolerably clear that the general words ‘wine’ and ‘strong drink’ [shekar] do not necessarily imply fermented liquors, the former signifying only a production of the vine, the latter the produce of other fruits than the grape.” -Dr. Lyman Abbott, Dictionary of Religious Knowledge

“Heb. Yayin ‘seems to be used to describe ‘all sorts of wine’ (Neh. 5:18), from the simple grape juice, or a thickened syrup, to the strongest liquors with which the Israelites were acquainted, the use of which often led to deplorable scenes of drunkenness’” -Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia

“Every time the Bible uses the word wine it does not necessarily mean that which is intoxicating. In the Bible there is wine that is intoxicating. In the Bible there is wine that is not intoxicating. And if you don’t understand that you are going to be hopelessly confused. You’re going to think Jesus perhaps became the original distiller when He turned water into wine. No, not at all.” -Adrian Rogers, SBC president.

“The Bible talks of two different kinds of wines – one that is permissible and another that is not; one that is similar to grape juice before fermentation and another that is intoxicating. When intoxicating wine is presented in the Bible, it is strongly condemned.” -Jack Graham, SBC president.

“The term ‘Cretan Wine’ meant a very sweet wine, a passum or protropos, as is evident from Dioscorides’s and Galen’s uses of the word.”
Tarentine wine is taken as “the pattern for wines of deep southern Italy: they are all ‘simple,’ not intoxicating, not forceful, pleasant, easy on the stomach. Horace, Odes 2.6.19-20; Pliny NH 14.69; Statius, Silvae 2.2.111; Martial 13.125; Juvenal 6.297; Athenaeus E 27c.” -Andrew Dalby, Food in the Ancient World From A to Z. Dalby is a historian, liguist, and author of several books on the classical world. His , is a secular, rather than a religious book.

The wine of Arcadia was “so dried up in its skins by the smoke that you scrape it to drink.” -Aristotle

“Concentrating grape juice down by heating is still used to make the popular shireh of modern Iran and was known to the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia as well as the Greeks and Romans. It enables fruit to be preserved, and, diluted with water, it produces a refreshing, nonalcoholic beverage.” -Patrick E. McGovern, Ancient Wine, Princeton University Press; 2003.

Many more examples, ancient and modern, could be given.
David R. Brumbelow

February 22, 2012 4:55 pm

Jeff

I found this to be an interesting read on the subject. A doctoral thesis from the University of Sydney in their Semitic Studies department. What is informative, is the authors knowledge and experience not only in ancient Semitic studies and the Hebrew language, but his experience and knowledge in both agriculture and wine making.

Also to David, you mention references to the early church using non alcoholic wine. What references are you referring to? Also, what references may I look up that proves they knew how to preserve grapes and maintain unfermented juice throughout the year in biblical times? Especially since the grape harvest was between one month to two months in total. Your example you give states that the process you explained kept the grapes for a few months. (That still wouldn’t equate to “year round” even if the case would it?)

In regard to the one book you keep referencing for different things, “Ancient Wine and the Bible”, isn’t this the book that you yourself wrote?

I’m also confused about your response to Dr. Willingham where you said, “You pronounce the cup of Passover was alcoholic. You “prove” this by referring to a couple of Jews. First, there are other Jews who would contradict this view. I know. Some are quoted in “Ancient Wine and the Bible.” You can prove this either way with such evidence.” This is just confusing to me. Are you discrediting his statement because it was based on a few Jewish people he spoke with, and because they differed with the few Jews that you quoted in your book who said the opposite? If the words of the few Jews you quoted in your book were prominent enough for you to use them in your published book, I don’t see where there is any difference in him doing the same thing here.

I’m not arguing either of your points, just a bit confused and was wondering what physical “references” you were speaking from.

In most all temperance viewpoints I see how they refer to the “New Wine” as being unfermented. Though Acts 2:13-15 KJV would not in any way support this theory. For as they saw them speaking in tongues some were amazed and others mocked them saying in verse 13 “Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine”.

And if they didn’t drink fermented wine, why in verse 15 would it state “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day”. If they never drank alcoholic wine, why wouldn’t he have said “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, because they do not partake of wine which is evil” (Or something similar. You get my point.) For the fact he stated that they were not drunk because it was the third hour of the day would imply to me that they indeed drank of fermented wine.

Also, I’m just curious, what then are your feelings regarding 1 Timothy 5:23? Did they use grape juice for their ailments? What about Proverbs 31:6? Psalms 104:15?

I want to be clear that I am in no way putting down your beliefs or anyone’s standpoint on this, and I commend anyone who tries getting the word out on the dangers of alcohol abuse, especially in our youth. I just disagree with your biblical interpretations on the matter and I don’t feel what is said in the Bible to be But hey, the good news is that at least one of us has to be right!! 🙂 And nothing I mention here is meant to be taken as “thrown in your face”, but I sincerely am wondering what your response is to these questions I have. Honestly, I don’t think it really matters whether our communion cups are filled with wine or juice, but i do believe in consubstantiation, which is the critical element.

By the way, have you read the book “God Gave Wine” which by careful lexical, exegetical and theological examination, the book demonstrates from the Bible the error of those who demand either prohibition or abstention. The author’s approach avoids the common pitfalls of emotionalism, cultural conditioning and ecclesiastical tradition, while remaining distinctively biblical in its research.

I found this to be an interesting read on the subject. A doctoral thesis from the University of Sydney in their Semitic Studies department. What is informative, is the authors knowledge and experience not only in ancient Semitic studies and the Hebrew language, but his experience and knowledge in both agriculture and wine making.

Also to David, you mention references to the early church using non alcoholic wine. What references are you referring to? Also, what references may I look up that proves they knew how to preserve grapes and maintain unfermented juice throughout the year in biblical times? Especially since the grape harvest was between one month to two months in total. Your example you give states that the process you explained kept the grapes for a few months. (That still wouldn’t equate to “year round” even if the case would it?)

In regard to the one book you keep referencing for different things, “Ancient Wine and the Bible”, isn’t this the book that you yourself wrote?

I’m also confused about your response to Dr. Willingham where you said, “You pronounce the cup of Passover was alcoholic. You “prove” this by referring to a couple of Jews. First, there are other Jews who would contradict this view. I know. Some are quoted in “Ancient Wine and the Bible.” You can prove this either way with such evidence.” This is just confusing to me. Are you discrediting his statement because it was based on a few Jewish people he spoke with, and because they differed with the few Jews that you quoted in your book who said the opposite? If the words of the few Jews you quoted in your book were prominent enough for you to use them in your published book, I don’t see where there is any difference in him doing the same thing here.

I’m not arguing either of your points, just a bit confused and was wondering what physical “references” you were speaking from.

In most all temperance viewpoints I see how they refer to the “New Wine” as being unfermented. Though Acts 2:13-15 KJV would not in any way support this theory. For as they saw them speaking in tongues some were amazed and others mocked them saying in verse 13 “Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine”.

And if they didn’t drink fermented wine, why in verse 15 would it state “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day”. If they never drank alcoholic wine, why wouldn’t he have said “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, because they do not partake of wine which is evil” (Or something similar. You get my point.) For the fact he stated that they were not drunk because it was the third hour of the day would imply to me that they indeed drank of fermented wine.

Also, I’m just curious, what then are your feelings regarding 1 Timothy 5:23? Did they use grape juice for their ailments? What about Proverbs 31:6? Psalms 104:15?

I want to be clear that I am in no way putting down your beliefs or anyone’s standpoint on this, and I commend anyone who tries getting the word out on the dangers of alcohol abuse, especially in our youth. I just disagree with your biblical interpretations on the matter and I don’t feel what is said in the Bible to be But hey, the good news is that at least one of us has to be right!! 🙂 And nothing I mention here is meant to be taken as “thrown in your face”, but I sincerely am wondering what your response is to these questions I have. Honestly, I don’t think it really matters whether our communion cups are filled with wine or juice, but i do believe in consubstantiation, which is the critical element.

By the way, have you read the book “God Gave Wine” which by careful lexical, exegetical and theological examination, the book demonstrates from the Bible the error of those who demand either prohibition or abstention. The author’s approach avoids the common pitfalls of emotionalism, cultural conditioning and ecclesiastical tradition, while remaining distinctively biblical in its research.

Jeff,
The grape harvest actually lasted six months or more. Ancient writers refer to some varieties of grapes that produced two crops a year. They had numerous varieties of grapes. Some were early, some late, some were best after a frost. But they knew how to keep fresh grapes for up to a year.

“For the early grapes, and the hybrids, the so-called black, ripen much earlier and so must be gathered sooner; and the part of the plantation and the vineyard which is sunnier should have its vines stripped first.” -Varro, c. 36 BC

“Pepperine wine…where Varro said the vines cropped twice each year…Apiana was a pair of varieties, one early, one late.” -Andrew Dalby

The Raetic grape “ripens in frost. The ‘smoke grape,’ the ‘mouthful’ and the tharrupia, which grow on the hills of Thurii, are not picked before there has been a frost.” -Pliny

Yes, the early church squeezed grapes into a cup for the Lord’s Supper. I’m not saying they exclusively did this, but it was one of their practices.

“Some even who presented no other wine at the sacrament of the Lord’s cup but what they pressed out of the cluster of grapes.” -Cyprian

“Bring ye also as an offering holy bread, and, having pressed three clusters from the vine into a cup, communicate with me, as the Lord Jesus showed us how to offer up when He rose from the dead on the third day.” -Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew

“One may squeeze the juice of a bunch of grapes into a cup and say the “?iddush.” -Jewish Encyclopedia.

Yes, I wrote Ancient Wine and the Bible. I think you would find it informative.

The issue of what the Jews practice concerning wine in the Passover, I have dealt with way above in this comment thread. Different Jews have done both; you can use them to prove either point.

Acts 2:13 – We will just disagree on the Apostle Peter’s comment proving they normally drank alcohol. I don’t believe this proves it at all. Peter was just giving an additional reason to show the disciples were not drunk. Their enemies were mocking them, yet people today take their comment about new wine (gleukos) as absolutely true. Aristotle said this kind of wine, sweet wine, did not intoxicate.
By the way, I’ve heard the comment today of someone being drunk on a soft drink. It is just a mocking comment. But take either interpretation and it still does not prove the disciples drank.

1 Timothy 5:23 – Paul was recommending a little wine only for medicinal reasons. The word for wine could mean either nonalcoholic or alcoholic wine. As I mentioned above, Jesus Himself called both by the name wine (oinos). Nonalcoholic wine or grape juice has more medicinal value, health benefits, and nutrition than alcohol. Fruit juice was a “multivitamin” of the day. But this is why Baptists have historically condemned “beverage alcohol” and left it open about it’s strictly medicinal use.

Yes, I have and have read “God Gave Wine.” You seem to like it. I oppose the recreational use of drugs, so I obviously disagree with it. For example, Gentry says, “Absent pasteurization, fermentation is unavoidable” (p. 54). Other Christian pro-drinking books say the same. That is an absolutely false statement. It is historically, scientifically, factually false.
David R. Brumbelow

Also, several sources (“Patrick McGovern is the Scientific Director of the Biomolecular Archaeology Laboratory for Cuisine, Fermented Beverages, and Health at the University of Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia, where he is also an Adjunct Professor of Anthropology. In the popular imagination, he is known as the “Indiana Jones of Ancient Ales, Wines, and Extreme Beverages.” and Dr. David Jordan and countless other viticulturists), state the grapes CAN and WILL ferment on the vine. And that animals would even seek these fermented grapes out to eat off of the vine for their effects.

By the way, Dr. Lyman Abbott’s “doctorate” was a Juris Doctorate J.D., as he was a lawyer who turned to the ministry where he was a pastor for 8 years (1860-1868) before retiring to devote himself to literature. He was also a somewhat controversial preacher in his time (19th century) as was written “He would later adopt a pronouncedly liberal theology. He was also a pronounced Christian Evolutionist. In two of his books, The Evolution of Christianity and The Theology of an Evolutionist, Abbott applied the concept of evolution in a Christian perspective.”

Also in reference to the word Yayin, in Genesis 9:21 “yayin” is what Noah drinks that makes him inebriated.

I know there are numerous Hebrew and Greek words for “wine” that were used throughout both the OT and NT, however just because there were different words from different writers, from different areas, spanning many years does not solely indicate that they MUST be referring to different drinks or classifications of drinks. How many common English words in use today, can you think of for alcoholic drinks? I can think of many used in our country much less how many others may have been used over the years and in different regions and countries.

It wouldn’t matter to me one bit whether alcohol ever existed! I just think that if this were such a paramount detail from the Lord’s perspective, and the Bible is the infallible word of God, then wouldn’t one think that He would make it perfectly clear to us through the words of the Bible, that alcohol in itself was something no one should partake in ever and for any reason?

I think it is fair to agree that “Yes” there was both fermented and unfermented drinks throughout the biblical times just as there are today. But we need to make sure we don’t overstep our views from either side of the fence and distort the Word, to push through our own agenda’s. And I’m not accusing anyone here of doing that, but I have seen it, just as I’m sure you all have.

Jeff,
You say,”Also in reference to the word Yayin, in Genesis 9:21 ‘yayin’ is what Noah drinks that makes him inebriated.”

No arguement. Yayin was used of alcoholic wine, it was also used of nonalcoholic wine (Isaiah 16:10).

Many similar English words are used today that can refer to either an alcoholic or nonalcoholic drink. Eggnog, Cider, Punch, Drink, Liquor.

I’ll be tied up for a while so may not have time to answer every one of your points. But anyone reading the main article and this long thread can see I’ve not been avoiding opposing comments.
David R. Brumbelow

Thank you, Jeff, for providing the info. re: the uses of the terms for wine and grape juice in the Bible. I was aware of the usage and welcome the sources you cited. Brother David, when it comes to issues as controversial as this, it is always advisable to be careful in what one asserts. It is also advisable to take a very careful look at the scholars cited: sometimes they have feet of clay. Just consider this fact: I was a member of the Mt. Pisgah Baptist church from 2004-2008. That church is the one from which came the first missionary of the SBC to China, Matthew Tyson Yates. The church was organized in 1814 with articles of faith that mentioned Jesus dying only for the church. The messengers of that church were present when Luther Rice enlisted the Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. in the launching of the Great Century of Missions, led them to adopt the Sandy Creek Confession of Faith (1816), and influenced Basil Manly, Sr., who was clerk of the Assn. that year and a member of that Confession Committee. While attending Mt. Pisgah, I was a member of one of the Senior men’s Sunday School Classes. One day we had a discussion of the matter of the use of wine in the communion. Several of the members spoke up and said they could remember the man who was responsible for securing the wine for the communion service. Thus, that church had used wine from its founding up to the 20th century. Sometime in the early to mid-20th century, they changed over to the use of grape juice. This was true in another church which I attended. And I have seen references to the matter of securing the wine in a number of church records which I have read (across 50 years as an ordained Southern Baptist minister [I was ordained may 20, 1962] and as almost as many years as a Baptist historian {I began serious research in Baptist history in 1963 after being encouraged to do research by a great Black Historian at Lincoln University in any subject. The result would be 3000 5×8 notecards covering over 250+ sources in church history in addition to a lot of other materials. one thesis, one address, a dramatization of the history of one of the historic churches of the SBC where John Gano pastored, and a number of papers and articles}).
One carefully weighs the evidence from all sources, evaluating the facts for reliability, validity, etc. The general persuasion of the churches of practically all denominations that are Christian has been that the communion calls for wine and unleavened bread, and what the persuasion was the practice was..until the 19th and 20th centuries, when the Abstinence movement begin to affect people’s interpretations of the facts. As to church discipline, I have read the records of churches on the issues. When they used wine, they would excommunicate a member who persisted in drunken indulgence after appropriate means to bring about repentance failed. The Jersey Church, where John Gano, the minister who is supposed to have baptized Genl. Washington before 60+ witnesses (so Dr. Garland Hendricks {a Moderate [I suppose] professor at SEBTS, }wrote in a pamphlet many years ago)was pastor in the 1700s took almost 10 years in dealing with one member on the issue before they finally excommunicated him. Churches using grape juice that I have pastored and tried to lead to practice church discipline would not consider taking any kind of disciplinary action for drunkenness. This was what I had reference to. Godly living is something to which we all are supposed to aspire. It is not an option; it is obligatory. The Charleston Discipline, a copy of which was edited by Dr. James Leo Garrett and published by the SBC/SSB, was one I tried to get a church to adopt. The deacons looked at it, handed it back to me, and said, they reckoned not. You can guess some of the sad results. In one church I had a deacon who took a teenager out on a river for all night fishing and beer drinking. The church did nothing.

We have to be careful that we do not allow our preferences to determine our interpretations. Filters carefully inserted here and there across the years can utterly subvert our interpretations of biblical teachings. I try to be conscious of that matter in my own interpretations on virtually every subject, for we must all give an account to God for every word, a fearful and dreadful prospect!